# Gear for melting out honey directly from frames



## mike bispham

Does anyone have any knowledge of melting out frames they could share? I'm thinking of building a melter that will collect honey and wax after an overnight melt, using the bottom of a small ibc as the catch tray/drain. The main issue is the type of heater. I guess I could just put a small fan convector in the bottom, but it seems dodgy - a bit of a fire hazard. I was thinking of embedding a small electric cooker ring in a concrete slab, controlled by thermostat and relay. Or maybe I could buy some suitable bar elements. 

Best might be a square tank of water and immersion heater underneath - but getting hold of a tank seems unlikely.

Does anyone know of a manufacturer of small units of this sort - mayby 24 frame capacity?

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Why do you want to waste all the honey?


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Why do you want to waste all the honey?


eh?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

In order to give a good answer I want to know, what you want to do with that honey (and wax). Do you want to consume it? The melting of whole combs is a practice that became outdated an aeon ago. It is not recommendable if you want to use it for human consumption, because heating honey to the point that wax melts, will increase the Hydroxymethylfurfural content (HMF, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxymethylfurfural) which is considered toxic to both humans and bees. It also decreases the storage life of honey.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> In order to give a good answer I want to know, what you want to do with that honey (and wax). Do you want to consume it? The melting of whole combs is a practice that became outdated an aeon ago. It is not recommendable if you want to use it for human consumption, because heating honey to the point that wax melts, will increase the Hydroxymethylfurfural content (HMF, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxymethylfurfural) which is considered toxic to both humans and bees. It also decreases the storage life of honey.


Interesting. Nothing comes up on a beesource search for hmf. BBKA says that temperatures above 49deg may cause a rise. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? 

Mike (MK)


----------



## WBVC

My tech recently bought several jars of "caramelized blackberry honey". No warning on the label that it was toxic. I assume it was heated honey.

I heated some cappings just to the melting point. Let it cool and the family tried the residual honey. Very dark and tasted great. Some preferred its flavour to honey right out of the extractor.

All caramel we eat is heated sugar. Are you certain warmed honey is a toxic product?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Honey is not the same as sugar. One difference are the acids which are needed to produce HMF. Heating sugar alone doesn't produce HMF. Read the wiki article, it basicly says it all.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Honey is not the same as sugar. One difference are the acids which are needed to produce HMF. Heating sugar alone doesn't produce HMF. Read the wiki article, it basicly says it all.


It doesn't tell me whether this aspect represents a problem for me, or whether careful use will be ok, or how to test whether it is ok. Those are the things I need to know.

My local commercial/gear suppliers uses his all the time. Its a very low temperature thing - he says it sometimes takes a few days to clear old comb. Its a commercially produced machine which is obviously made for this purpose. They can turn up the tempeature to clear just old comb quickly.

I'm wondering if I can arrange for the melt to flow to a cooler place straight away.

The reason for wanting to this is to maximise returns on labour. Spinning with my limited gear just takes too long, and leaves too much behind. I have a good market for honey, and I'm mostly using starter strips so refitting frames doesn't take long. A better spinner might make all the difference, and getting it off the hives quicker would also help. But with 70 colonies and growing I've been too busy staying ahead of them to stop and take anything off. Its about learning how best to handle things at that sort of scale. Sticking maybe 20 or 30 or more frames in a melter and leaving them for a day or two all throught the winter might be a useful approach - if the penalty on quality isn't too high. Since I can make things like that quickly and cheaply its a possibility. Otherwise I might look at making a press.

Mike (UK)


----------



## AstroBee

Are you talking about melting everything out of the frame (wax and all)? Wax melts around 145F do you really want to heat your honey that high? I honestly believe that you need to rethink this concept.

70 colonies, let's say 2 supers per colony, 10-frame equipment, you have 1400 frames of honey to deal with at least once per season. I can't believe that you're considering melting all of this and refitting with starter strips. No wonder you're looking for labor saving tips.

Buy a decent 20 frame extractor. Run your honey supers on foundation and extract. The time and effort you're currently dedicating to foundationless will free up all sorts of time, which a portion can be dedicated to extraction. In the end, you'll be way ahead (on many fronts).


----------



## mike bispham

AstroBee said:


> Are you talking about melting everything out of the frame (wax and all)? Wax melts around 145F do you really want to heat your honey that high? I honestly believe that you need to rethink this concept.


I don't doubt you are right, although as I'm going for the cut comb market that'll make some difference. But I don't have a budget this year for a better machine, and I only have 30 or 40 supers to deal with (most of my colonies are this year's nucs and swarms, and have been making wax - as well as comb for cutting). I also have a touch of rape in most them to deal with... so its a solution to a here and now problem, and something I'm looking into as perhaps part of a future operation. Bear in mind I can probably knock up something for under £100 and half a day's work...

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Better buy or build a huge press. Much better taste and product. Heating spoils the honey.

Gee, at a rate of twenty frames per two days...also think of the energy that is needed to heat for two full days!

If you are scaling up, get your gear ready beforehand. Don't believe customers come back if they were disappointed by your products.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

A traditional press:





Google sketch: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=b9c1597d0099e8fd33bf0eea2b154a39


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Simple and cheap, a selfmade press. Made by my friend Uwe. 























































Stainless steel screws was the only thing he bought.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

30-40 supers? You won't do 600-800 kg through a small press or melting device. 

If you can't afford an extractor, borrow one or pay another beek for a day in his honey house. Rent an extractor. Ask your neighbour.

Hope you got your winterfeed for 70 colonies ready. That is about 1,500 litres of syrup. You need to feed soon.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Hope you got your winterfeed for 70 colonies ready. That is about 1,500 litres of syrup. You need to feed soon.


I'm leaving quite a bit on, they have the end of the chestnut, clover, wild marjoram, ongoing bramble, willowherb, dandelion, thistle and ragwort, other odds, later ivy. Unless the weather is terrible I don't plan to feed much. Those that don't manage their stores well will be out.

But thanks for the caution.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Yes, caution. 70 hives cost you 7,000 € per year. (100 € per hive per year: annual costs). It's simply as that. Scaling up, with no financial planning, is a recipe for disaster. No decent feeding, nothing. All natural starving bees. Customers get low quality honey. No, Mike, I really expected more from you.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Even commercial beekeepers that produce multiple barrels of "_melter honey_" as a by-product of processing the wax that results from uncapping and extraction seem to have a low opinion of the quality of their own '_melter honey_'. 

One thread from 2011: "Is there a market for scorched, wax melter honey"


----------



## mike bispham

It seems to me from what I've read so far that careful heat separation doesn't result in 'scorched' honey. 

I'm going to make a 5 gallon bain marie tomorrow to experiment with a lot of wild and old comb and crstalized honey. That'll double as a warmer prior to spinning.

Mike (UK)


----------



## rolftonbees

I am new to this bee stuff, but.........

Could you just crush and strain like usual, then melt the wax at 145F degrees and collect the additional honey and sell it as pasteurized honey? 

Seems this would allow you to salvage the extra, and sell it as what it is, and the customer is informed and has a choice.


----------



## mike bispham

rolftonbees said:


> Could you just crush and strain like usual, then melt the wax at 145F degrees and collect the additional honey and sell it as pasteurized honey?
> 
> Seems this would allow you to salvage the extra, and sell it as what it is, and the customer is informed and has a choice.


At this moment my understanding is that melters are run at 40 degrees C. and pasteurisation begins to occur at about 65 degrees C.

Slow low-temperature melters are widely used in commercial honey processing without any apparent ill effects, nor any need to label the honey differently. But it is the case that slow and low is the way to go. Higher than 40 degrees C is a different ball game. That's the picture as I currently understand it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## squirrel

@ Bernhard

How about cleaning the press when done with honey extraction? Has it been difficult for your friend to clean the wood? I'm assuming there's a filter bag the comb is put into.


----------



## deknow

Why not use a water jacketed ss bottling tank?


----------



## Michael Bush

Honey from melted wax is only good for baking. It's not good table honey. It will be dark and not at all fresh tasting. I melt my cappings to get the last of the honey out, and I keep that honey separate and only use it for cooking or I sell it as "baking" honey.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> Interesting. Nothing comes up on a beesource search for hmf.


I beg to differ.

http://www.beesource.com/search-res...bgj0w7w&cof=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8&q=hmf&sa=Search


----------



## mike bispham

Michael Bush said:


> Honey from melted wax is only good for baking. It's not good table honey. It will be dark and not at all fresh tasting. I melt my cappings to get the last of the honey out, and I keep that honey separate and only use it for cooking or I sell it as "baking" honey.


It seem to me there's honey from 'melted wax', and then there's honey from an expensive purpurse-built melting out machine: and they are two different things. I had my local commercial melt 2 supers for me and the honey was slightly runnier than by extraction, but not much, and it'll soon thicken again. It was no darker. I'm not expert but I couldn't detect any flavour difference at all.

These machines are designed to keep the honey as cool as possible. As soon as the honey falls from the sagging comb it runs to a cool sump. It isn't a quick process. The Dana Api melter costs over £3000 - its designed and built to extract honey competently. The testimony I've read from people who've bought and used one is basically ' I wish I'd done it years ago'.

That' doesn't mean the approach will suit everyone. For those capable of having an open mind about this, these links are from my notes:

http://www.paynesbeefarm.co.uk/uncapping-equipment/dana-api-melter/
http://www.swienty.com/shop/vare.asp?side=0&vareid=109625
http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-15800.html
http://www.bbka.org.uk/members/forum.php?t=1173

Mike (UK)


----------



## max2

Michael Bush said:


> Honey from melted wax is only good for baking. It's not good table honey. It will be dark and not at all fresh tasting. I melt my cappings to get the last of the honey out, and I keep that honey separate and only use it for cooking or I sell it as "baking" honey.


Agree, I and many others do the same.


----------



## KQ6AR

When heating honey over 115F you can't call it raw honey anymore. 
When heating honey to the melting temp of wax it has to be sold as melter honey for cooking & mead making. essentially ruining the value of it.


----------



## mike bispham

KQ6AR said:


> When heating honey over 115F you can't call it raw honey anymore.
> When heating honey to the melting temp of wax it has to be sold as melter honey for cooking & mead making. essentially ruining the value of it.


That's 46 deg C. As I think I've outlined, the (professional) melters hold the temperature at just under 40 deg C (104.F), which is sufficient to weaken the comb enough to allow the honey to run out. It goes straight to a cool sump. 

Only once the honey has been removed are the melters turned up to clear all wax from the frames.

Basically, they minimise the temperate the honey is subjected to, and succeed, so people write, in extracting without spoiling.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jim lyon

....or so "they write". In practical application, it's just not that black and white. I have operated two such systems that attempted to do just what you are proposing and my conclusion is it's just not possible to get a very large percentage of your honey down into the cool area without some heat damage. True some can be separated out quite easily at lower temps but a very high percentage is still subjected to unacceptable amounts of heat. If your fine with having half of your honey heat damaged to varying degrees then have at it. Your choice then is to sell half as heat damaged or blend it back in which case it will all be heat damaged. I swore years ago it was not feasible trying to melt wax in the same process you are using to separate dry cappings and nothing I have seen has changed my mind since. Just cut your losses here Mike and put this off as a bad idea.


----------



## mike bispham

What came back to me Jim was honey and honey/wax in the proportions I'd say 80:20 by weight. That makes me think they have these sorts of concerns in mind. that 20 will be half (?) wax and half honey, that may be spoiled to some degree. (its in a sack and I haven't looked at it yet). If it isn't too badly spoiled its up to me to separate it without damaging it too much. 

I think the topic is live.

Mike (UK)


----------



## jim lyon

Hey, its your honey, do what you wish with it. The basic idea of cooler denser honey falling away from the hotter honey above is one that has long been worked on with many different variations but has never perfected to even remotely rival the honey quality you get from other more basic methods. Considering the alternative is crushing and straining or draining on some sort of hardware cloth would remove perhaps as much as 98% of the honey with no damage whatsoever. Why not just strain them off before allowing the great majority of your honey to get anywhere near the high heat that virtually ruins the beauty and subtle flavors of raw honey.


----------



## mike bispham

I'll consider that Jim, thanks. It was the labour-saving element that appealled to me, including the ability to turn up the heat later to de-wax the frames. Time is money.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

This thread is one of the best examples of bull headedness I have seen.

In the OP an idea is posted as if it is a question. There are then 3 pages of posts saying don't do it. Not one post thinks it's a good idea. But over 3 pages the OP insists he will go ahead regardless.

Why ask the question?

Let me try to dissuade from this bad practise. First up, your proposed design is the worst possible. The heat will come from the bottom, under the honey. Or that's what I assume, from your idea of embedding an electric element in concrete as the heat source. So the honey / wax mix that has fallen down will have to be pretty hot before you get all the comb to melt.

Just cold crush and strain the honey, it can be warmed first no harm done.

Back when I started in bees, honey was not tested, for anything. Just extracted, packed, and sold. In the extracting room we had what was called a hot top. The honey from the uncapping machine ran through it, there was a powerful heat source beaming down from the top and a series of baffles to bring wax to the top. A steady stream of melted wax came out one little pipe, and honey from another which flowed back into the extracted honey. The design was clever because the heat source was above not below, and the way the wax was brought to the top meant the heat was applied more to the wax, than the honey under it. None the less, if you dipped your finger in the honey coming out, it had a burned taste compared to the unheated honey coming from the extractors.

These devices are no longer used in the industry here because now honey is tested for many things, and the degree of damage these devices do to honey is detectable.

Mike you constantly claim lack of money, yet have proposed spending money on various gadgets to melt honeycomb. Spend the money on a system of crushing the honey out cold and do not deceive your customers. I am sure you will claim your honey is worth a premium as naturally produced local honey. So adulterating it is not ethical.

You are in for the long haul right? If you go ahead and build this melter I am sure you will grow to hate it. Not to mention feel bad when selling the honey, plus be too ashamed to show anyone inside your honey processing plant.

Once you have figured a system that does not ruin the goodness of the honey, maybe crush and strain but hopefully based around an extractor, you will feel a lot better, and will thank me and the other posters.


----------



## KQ6AR

Thanks Oldtimer, I was asking myself why he hasn't taken any of the good advice offered also.


----------



## the kid

buy a extractor ,,, as it takes around 8 pounds of honey to make 1 pound of wax


----------



## mike bispham

the kid said:


> buy a extractor ,,, as it takes around 8 pounds of honey to make 1 pound of wax


I was chatting to a long time commercial beekeeper locally a few days ago, who'd invested in a £3000+ melter three years ago. He said it was a great move, and reckoned it'd cut his labour by 1/3rd. To those in business that's a very significant figure. He said it didn't damage the honey in the least.

This figure you quote: does it have scientific backing, or is it someone's guess. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

So you gonna buy the £3000+ melter? 

Is he melting his whole harvest with it or does he melt the capping stuff with it? 

How many hives runs this commercial beekeeper?

How is your harvest doing? And how many customers do you want to winter?


----------



## mike bispham

If you remember Bernhard: I'm thinking of making one. He melts his whole harvest with it - that's how he makes a 1/3 labour saving. I don't know how many hives he has - it would have to be quite a few to pay for that gear. My harvesting is almost done thanks. I don't understand your last question.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> I don't understand your last question.


That's what I thought. Beekeeping is not about wintering bees but wintering customers, too. A hundred hives eat 100 bucks each every year, that is 10,000 bucks. You need someone to pay that for you. Especially if you can't afford decent equipment by yourself. If you fail to winter customers because of low quality honey, your beekeeping adventure will run out in a short time.



mike bispham said:


> that's how he makes a 1/3 labour saving.


It also saves him from harvesting the other two thirds of the honey he misses when destroying combs on purpose. Saving a third of the time and two thirds of this years income => that really sounds like a good business plan...

100 hives produce at least 8 tons of honey. You need 8 days with hobbyist equipment to extract that. Makes:

8,000 kg = 80,000 bucks = 80 hours extracting time.

Compare this to: 

100 hives plus poor management (without empty reusable honey combs) = produce 2.5 tons of honey. Makes:

2,500 kg = 20,500 bucks = 50 hours melting time.

If you insert the fact, that the same amount of work is needed to run those 100 hives, the choice of melting the honey is nothing but a poor way to run a "business".


Sure you can sell the honey for a higher price: you'd need to sell it for 32 bucks per kg to cover the losses. I just can't see it happen with molten honey which is of the lowest quality possible of all way to harvest honey.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Beekeeping is not about wintering bees but wintering customers, too.


My sales don't work that way yet - a year round supply (and sales outlets) is stuff to work toward. 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> A hundred hives eat 100 bucks each every year, that is 10,000 bucks. You need someone to pay that for you. Especially if you can't afford decent equipment by yourself.


I don't know how you arrive at that figure. Don't your bees collect honey? Or is that the cost of all the stuff you put in them to keep them alive?

Mike (UK)


----------



## USMCEOD

Mr. Bispham... I say go ahead with your plan to save your back and make the honey melter gizmo that you envisioned in your dream...

Everyone else has the idea that you are going to fail... here's your chance to really change the whole beekeeping planet... go forth and conquer...

The way I see it, in 2 years you will bee writing a book on your success or you will be selling apples... either way somebody wins!!!


----------



## Oldtimer

Kind of agree with that comment, if you want to do it go ahead, end of day the consequences will be yours.

About the commercial beekeeper who processes all his honey with a melter. Sorry, I just find that pretty much impossible to believe. Depends what you call a commercial beekeeper but I just cannot imagine a commercial beekeeper destroying all his comb every year, and somehow saving money, don't see how it could reduce labour by a third either, and don't believe it has no effect on the honey, it does.

Here is a video of commercial beekeepers extracting honey. Not all set ups are like this but some common elements are the little use of heat. Note even the cappings are pulverised then spun dry, the honey comes out virtually cold and the cappings are so dry no further useable honey is removed with heat treatment. The combs are ready for use by the bees again not destroyed, never mind that melting everything could not possibly be as quick.

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


----------



## jim lyon

We tried a couple different melter setups designed to work at production speed in the extracting room. Both of which claimed to not darken the honey, each was pretty much a major pain to operate and each darkened the honey noticeably. We utilize a system pretty much exactly like Greg shows in his video, (though we have just one line). The C&B separator is what most are using. Honey is only warmed to just over 100 degrees which is probably no warmer than what it's exposed to on a hot midsummer day, the honey quality coming out is excellent and only the last 1% or so is exposed to the high temps of a wax melting procedure.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

jim lyon said:


> Honey is only warmed to just over 100 degrees which is probably no warmer than what it's exposed to on a hot midsummer day, the honey quality coming out is excellent and only the last 1% or so is exposed to the high temps of a wax melting procedure.


Jim, do you keep that final 1% honey (the melter honey) stored _separately _from the 99% that was from the extractor?

If stored separately, does the melter honey sell at a discount compared to the extracted honey?


----------



## Daniel Y

Interesting processor. Not sure what it has to do with how the majority would be doing it. There is a guy just up the hill from me that uses a helicopter to get to work. I don't often think to ask him about commuting advice.

I know I see quite a few conversations here about how to set up the tanks etc for heating the honey.

What would the run time on a batch of frames be in an extractor like that?


----------



## jim lyon

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Jim, do you keep that final 1% honey (the melter honey) stored _separately _from the 99% that was from the extractor?
> 
> If stored separately, does the melter honey sell at a discount compared to the extracted honey?


Yes, it's a pretty low grade product and if too much water has been incorporated in it from the cooling jet on the spinner it has even less value. Just don't ever try blending it back in with your white honey or you will ruin even more honey. 
Daniel, average run times on these extracting setups are about 7 to 8 minutes with mediums and around 10 minutes with deeps depending on the moisture content of the honey. The video is at least relevant in showing how honey can be separated with very little heat. This is, in effect, the large scale competition for those doing it on a much smaller scale. My first comments in this thread are why would you even think of using a melter when crush and strain is so easy and requires no heat.


----------



## Daniel Y

jim lyon said:


> My first comments in this thread are why would you even think of using a melter when crush and strain is so easy and requires no heat.


First answer that comes to my mind is speed. I have done crush and stain. I don't like how the honey looks when it is done and in my case it had to set for over 24 hours to get the honey to strain out. We did not heat it I would say what we did was warmed it. less than 100 degrees just to get it to run. The next year I spent $600 on an extractor. much happier. It has already paid for itself several times over.


----------



## mike bispham

jim lyon said:


> We utilize a system pretty much exactly like Greg shows in his video, (though we have just one line).


I should probably point out that 'commercial' in uk terms is likely a much smaller outfit than in US terms. The two I've met so far are just family businesses running, I'm guessing, 3-500 hives. The sort of gear your video shows would be beyond their means and unjustified. Yet spinning is very labour intensive.

It could be too that the machines they use are designed primarily for cappings extraction and for cleaning frames prior to rewaxing, but that they've found that with care they can be used for the whole extraction; and that this supplies an economic advantage that outweighs the loss of comb.

This sort of full time but 'cottage industry' type set up may well find ways of working that don't suit the sort of larger outfits you people call 'commercials'. And its what my set-up will, hopefully look like. Its a livelyhood, not a corporation.

A bit of recent experience. I made a stack warmer (to lift boxes of comb to an ideal spinning extraction and bottling temperature) using a small fan heater. At first I was controlling it with a room stat in the top; then I realised I was overloading the stat, and just plugged it straight in. I overdid it a little, and melted out about a quarter of the lowest box, nearest the fan. The honey was caught in the tray designed for just that eventuality, and I (later) tipped it out. It looked and tasted just fine.

I'm currently thinking about building my melting on a trailer so it can be loaded straight off hives, taken to a power source, run overnight, unloaded, reloaded (straight off hives again), and the goods taken for storage and re-waxing (mostly starterstrip). That sounds like efficiency for me, with most of my hive 30 miles from my works. Doubtless there'll be no shortage of people ready to tell me what a stupid idea that is.

I'd like to learn more about the cost of building comb in honey terms - that has to be part of the economic equation if - and I accept that as yet its still an if - honey can be extracted this way without undue damage.

Mike (UK)


----------



## dsegrest

As hard as is to get the bees to draw out the comb, I can't understand why anyone would melt it.


----------



## mike bispham

dsegrest said:


> As hard as is to get the bees to draw out the comb, I can't understand why anyone would melt it.


Mine don't seem to find it hard. If they need comb they make it. It helps if I slow feed light syrup. They do it much more willingly before mid July, otherwise no problem. I harvest a lot for cut comb anyway. 

The reason is: spinning is labour intensive. Clear it, take it off, store it, warm it, uncap it, load it, spin it, turn it round and spin it again, turn it round and spin it again (yes a radial spinner would be a good thing), put it back on hives to be cleaned, take it off again...

Or: Clear it, load it, melt it, store it.

Unless you have slave labour to hand, time is money. Money is a livelihood. For this level of operation this seems worth looking into.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike if you want to cut costs, and work, the melt all the combs idea IS a mistake.

However from post one you have been decided. So please go ahead...

But if you can, try this. Find a way to extract just a few boxes of comb so the combs are preserved. Don't put them back on the hives to be cleaned, store them wet overwinter. Use them on a few hives next season. Note the difference in production with the hives that have to start from scratch, and note how much less time is involved for you.


----------



## Stephenpbird

mike bispham said:


> the goods taken for storage and re-waxing (mostly starter-strip). That sounds like efficiency for me,
> Mike (UK)


"Wax starterstrips" efficient. Use a small strip of wood as a starterstrip. Works just as well as wax, is only done once at the time one puts the frame together. The frame is ready to use straight out of the wax melter. Wax starterstrips do not sound efficient to me.:no:


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Don't forget to burn all your boxes. Saves you the labour of storing them overwinter. And ye now:time is money.


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> The reason is: spinning is labour intensive. Clear it, take it off, store it, warm it, uncap it, load it, spin it, turn it round and spin it again, turn it round and spin it again (yes a radial spinner would be a good thing), put it back on hives to be cleaned, take it off again...
> 
> Or: Clear it, load it, melt it, store it.
> (UK)


I started to comment on this yesterday but decided not to.

Clear it, take it off, store it, warm it, uncap it, load it, spin it, turn it round and spin it again, turn it round and spin it again (yes a radial spinner would be a good thing), put it back on hives to be cleaned, take it off again...

You have padded this a bit. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "Take it off" In regard to extracting. but up to the point the frames are in an extractor the labor woudl be identical. Removing them from an extractor or a melter and placing frames back in supers is also identical. Possibly a time difference in the honey extraction process. The example in the video has no turning of frames for extraction etc.

So more accurately this should read. Clear it, Load it. Extract it. Unload and store. Moving supers to storage or replace them on hives for cleaning. is only a matter of location they are moved to they are still moved. Extraction woudl then have one additional step to gather the supers a second time and store them. I am not sure that saving that labor would justify the loss of drawn comb.

Also what are the additional costs of producing the heat to melt wax? What woudl cause all the wax to be removed from the frames. how much additional clean up scraping or otherwise prep woudl be necessary. I suppose goign directly from honey removal to storage could be made quick and convenient.

Still I find this sort of chasing the elusive idea that you will make more money by working less. If that worked then why don't we all quit our jobs? The additional work regardless of much or little it is of extracting is done becausee it is profitable. Or at least that is the general idea.

By my observations and how much a colony produces on drawn comb vs. how much they produce on comb that must be drawn. I consider the production difference to be considerable. This can be a bit difficult to determine given all the other factors that effect the outcome. But I have had many opportunities to observe a colony with drawn comb next to those with undrawn ones. Traditional methods of keeping bees in ways that require they draw comb every year seem to use much smaller hives. A much higher percentage of their production is taken as well. in some cases all of it.

Seems to me you are on the fringe of a destroy all each year and start fresh each spring method.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

This seems like a good place to point out that Beesource offers _FREE _plans for _building your own _20 frame extractor: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

http://www.beesource.com/build-it-yourself/20-frame-honey-extractor/


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> It could be too that the machines they use are designed primarily for cappings extraction and for cleaning frames prior to rewaxing, but that they've found that with care they can be used for the whole extraction; and that this supplies an economic advantage that outweighs the loss of comb.
> 
> Mike (UK)


LOL. An ultracrepidarian statement at it's finest. 

You have never extracted more than a couple boxes, right Mike?


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> You have padded this a bit. I am not exactly sure what you mean by "Take it off" In regard to extracting. but up to the point the frames are in an extractor the labor woudl be identical.


Not if I'm taking them off the hives and putting them straight into the melter. 



Daniel Y said:


> Removing them from an extractor or a melter and placing frames back in supers is also identical.


They're melted in the supers (and there's no uncapping) 



Daniel Y said:


> Possibly a time difference in the honey extraction process. The example in the video has no turning of frames for extraction etc.


No, it has a $20,000 piece of kit and some paid workers!



Daniel Y said:


> So more accurately this should read. Clear it, Load it. Extract it. Unload and store. Moving supers to storage or replace them on hives for cleaning. is only a matter of location they are moved to they are still moved. Extraction woudl then have one additional step to gather the supers a second time and store them. I am not sure that saving that labor would justify the loss of drawn comb.


I know my workload, geographic layout, and the limitations of my back. 



Daniel Y said:


> Also what are the additional costs of producing the heat to melt wax? What woudl cause all the wax to be removed from the frames. how much additional clean up scraping or otherwise prep woudl be necessary.


Negligable. Its a closed insulated box; with patience you could do it with a light bulb.

The second big advantage with a melter comes when the honey is clear of the heat, and you turn it up to clear off ALL the wax. 



Daniel Y said:


> I suppose goign directly from honey removal to storage could be made quick and convenient.


How long does it take to put warm honey in buckets through an 1 1/4 honey valve? Whole job, including tipping the trailer to get the last drops, 5 minutes tops.



Daniel Y said:


> Still I find this sort of chasing the elusive idea that you will make more money by working less. If that worked then why don't we all quit our jobs? The additional work regardless of much or little it is of extracting is done becausee it is profitable. Or at least that is the general idea.


Businesses that innovate often get ahead of the competion. You should always be looking for ways to improve on what you do.



Daniel Y said:


> By my observations and how much a colony produces on drawn comb vs. how much they produce on comb that must be drawn. I consider the production difference to be considerable. This can be a bit difficult to determine given all the other factors that effect the outcome. But I have had many opportunities to observe a colony with drawn comb next to those with undrawn ones. Traditional methods of keeping bees in ways that require they draw comb every year seem to use much smaller hives. A much higher percentage of their production is taken as well. in some cases all of it.


I agree; it needs evaluating. I still don't have a sound figure for relative energy costs (how much honey is lost to drawing comb)



Daniel Y said:


> Seems to me you are on the fringe of a destroy all each year and start fresh each spring method.


For honeycomb, not brood comb, yes; it does seem to me to be a working method being adopted hereabouts. 

Maybe the economics have shifted. Perhaps I'll get some cheap migrant workers, and they'll shift back. For now its still on the cards. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> Negligable. Its a closed insulated box; with patience you could do it with a light bulb.
> 
> The second big advantage with a melter comes when the honey is clear of the heat, and you turn it up to clear off ALL the wax.
> 
> (UK)


I have built many kilns. One is 22 cubic feet and will maintain a temperature of 180 degrees outdoors mid winter. It requires 1000 watts to do that. Even a small trailer would require about 10 times that energy. That is my guess at least. And that is with a container insulated to the teeth and no drafts.

Spend the time to build small prototypes. You may end up with some strange results such as honey that is dried outrather than wax that is melted. Just saying from my experience you don''t always get what you expect. The melting point of beeswax is 144 degrees. Here is my thought on heating honey that high in a kiln.

Drying tobacco leaf can take as much as 3 months if it is just hung in a barn. I built a kiln that will do it in about 2 days. It runs between 80 degrees (for curing of the tobacco which turns it from green to yellow) To on average about 160 to dry it. The drying part happens in the last 24 to 48 hours. The impression I am trying to get across is how much water a heated box can remove from something in a short period of time. You may find you have some humidity control necessary. that is a lot harder to do than heating.

Sanitation in a trailer that you walk in that then serves as the honey collector. looks like another issue. 

Having worked with incubators and kilns including designing and building them has made one thing very clear. Heat does not work the way most think it does. This would be my single biggest reason to encourage you to experiment. I suspect you will find partially melted frames with large amounts of unmelted comb all lover the place.

Think of a pot of water starting to boil. Water boils at 212 degrees. At which point the water converts to steam. If you have ever been hit with steam it is obvious that usually it is much hotter than 212 degrees. So where did it get that extra heat from all of a sudden? It took it from the rest of the water still in the pot. That is why in fact water will boil and not simply reach 212 degrees and vaporize to a dry pot. Only very tiny pockets of water actually reach 212 degrees at any given moment. and this will continue for a very long time depending on how much water is in the pot.

So the issue is not just one of how much energy needed to get a given space to 144 degrees. it is an issue of how much energy required to melt x lbs of wax. as the wax converts form a solid to a liquid state it to will rob heat energy from it's surroundings. wax will melt more in bits and pieces. it will likely melt start to run then solidify again only to be melted again later. On and on until eventually enough energy has been put into it to have it all melted. I am not sure you will ever get a nice clear the wax melted and the honey is able to separate from it. I am thinking more like wax melts runs makes a sheet honey runs down on that more wax melts and covers honey making wax with pockets of honey inside it.

Another thing about heat. it is not something that spreads around nice and evenly. This tendency would be called cold spots among those that use incubators. It is a huge problem of it's own. and the larger the container and the more you put in it the bigger the problem with cold spots.

Not all things absorb heat equally. You could have the melted wax caught in a wooden box for example. when you go to retrieve it the wax could still be melted while the box is cool enough to handle. This is poof that wax absorbs more heat energy than wood does. It is also proof that although the wax reached 144 degrees the wood never did.

I am not sure how this will play out as far as how honey absorbs heat compared to wax. But it is my impression that honey is used by bees through the winter as a heat sink. I suspect you may find that by the time you get wax to 144 degrees the honey could be well beyond destroyed temperatures. again another reason to experiment. The general idea is that to get wax to 144 degrees may cause the honey to reach 200 degrees or more. This is the exact same thing you experience on a warm sunny day. you stand in the sun and are comfortable. But the hive tool you left laying on top of the last hive gets so hot you can't touch it. Not all things are the same temperature under the exact same conditions. How hot will the honey get before the wax melts?
If the honey is like you on a sunny day you have no problem. it it is like the hive tool it probably won't work without destroying the honey. From what I have seen by warming honey for extracting. Honey takes on heat much faster than wax. and it keeps it for a very long time. a bucket of honey warmed to 90 to 100 degrees during extracting is still warm hours later. It was just a casual observation I made while extracting honey last year. It is what caused me to consider that honey in the winter may serve as a heat storage. 

So here is the general idea I think will take place. first honey will be beyond destroyed before wax ever melts. This is simply because I think honey is much more like the hive tool and the wax is more like you on a sunny day. That once you do actually get some wax to it's melting point it will run down and begin to collect in a pool of melted wax. this pool of melted wax will also tend to absorb heat more readily than any remaining solid wax and possibly even more readily than honey. The molten wax and scorching honey will then be robbing the majority of the heat until the honey dries out. the wax will then begin to flirt with reaching combustion temperatures.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Removing them from an extractor or a melter and placing frames back in supers is also identical



mike bispham said:


> They're melted in the supers (and there's no uncapping)


However, since you appear to have used _WAX _starter strips (see post #76) on those frames, you will now have to individually remove _each frame_ from their respective supers, replace the starter strip, and then reload _each frame_ in a super.




> Perhaps I'll get some cheap migrant workers ...


Documented? :lpf:


----------



## Oldtimer

Since we are talking 5 or 10 boxes, how much labour is really involved?

Although it could still be a while if each one has to be melted in some kind of cube thing.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> I have built many kilns. One is 22 cubic feet and will maintain a temperature of 180 degrees outdoors mid winter. It requires 1000 watts to do that. Even a small trailer would require about 10 times that energy. That is my guess at least. And that is with a container insulated to the teeth and no drafts.


Many years ago I built a timber drying kiln, 256 cubic feet. It had a little dehumidifier to take moisture out, and the warmth to raise and hold the internal temperature came entirely from the the dehumidifier motor. If you have a well insulated enclosed space then a tiny heat source will build the temperature until something gives out. I've seen (on the telly) a demonstration of a chicken being cooked by a 100w light bulb this way.



Daniel Y said:


> Spend the time to build small prototypes. You may end up with some strange results such as honey that is dried outrather than wax that is melted. Just saying from my experience you don''t always get what you expect.


While that's good advice, the honey can't dry - its in a sealed insulated box. (I'tll need to be well insulated to stop moisture condensing out) But I'll a commercial machine and talk to the owners/users first. 



Daniel Y said:


> Think of a pot of water starting to boil. Water boils at 212 degrees. At which point the water converts to steam. If you have ever been hit with steam it is obvious that usually it is much hotter than 212 degrees.


It can't be hotter unless its being held at a higher than atmospheric pressure. That's a physical fact. 



Daniel Y said:


> So the issue is not just one of how much energy needed to get a given space to 144 degrees. it is an issue of how much energy required to melt x lbs of wax.


That will depend (mostly) on the temperature of the honey going in. 



Daniel Y said:


> wax will melt more in bits and pieces. it will likely melt start to run then solidify again only to be melted again later. On and on until eventually enough energy has been put into it to have it all melted. I am not sure you will ever get a nice clear the wax melted and the honey is able to separate from it. I am thinking more like wax melts runs makes a sheet honey runs down on that more wax melts and covers honey making wax with pockets of honey inside it.


Yes, I expect this will require some attention. Perhaps a chickenwire mesh holding fallen chunks up in the warmest area will solve that one. Gunk will collect in the first tray, piling up and draining (like cappings do) into the cooler sump beneath.



Daniel Y said:


> Another thing about heat. it is not something that spreads around nice and evenly. This tendency would be called cold spots among those that use incubators. It is a huge problem of it's own. and the larger the container and the more you put in it the bigger the problem with cold spots.


I was thinking of using several fan heaters, but perhaps a mixer fan or two will be helpful as well.



Daniel Y said:


> I am not sure how this will play out as far as how honey absorbs heat compared to wax. But it is my impression that honey is used by bees through the winter as a heat sink.


I don't think it could be otherwise, though the honey is only held warm if and where its surrounded by the cluster. As the cluster moves it will have to warm cold honey.



Daniel Y said:


> . I suspect you may find that by the time you get wax to 144 degrees the honey could be well beyond destroyed temperatures.


Others seem to be doing it successfuly. I don't know what I can add to that. It seems to be possible. (And my accidental experiment showed it isn't that hard to melt out honey without harming it)



Daniel Y said:


> The general idea is that to get wax to 144 degrees may cause the honey to reach 200 degrees or more.


That isn't possible. If I'm holding the space at 39-41 deg. C. (102-105 F.), the operating temperature that has been recommended to me, nothing in that space can possibly go higher. Again, a physical fact. At this temperature the wax softens sufficiently to release the honey, but slowly. Its emphasised that slow and steady is the name of the game.



Daniel Y said:


> This is the exact same thing you experience on a warm sunny day. you stand in the sun and are comfortable. But the hive tool you left laying on top of the last hive gets so hot you can't touch it.


That's (mostly) because the hive tool is exposed to direct solar radiation. The roof its on likewise. The darker the tool/roof, the more energy they will absorb.

The human body is protected from solar radiation by clothing, it perspires to remove heat, and has the majority of its bulk in shade or partial light. The blood also rapidly shifts heat away to cooler areas.



Daniel Y said:


> From what I have seen by warming honey for extracting. Honey takes on heat much faster than wax.


It may feel like that, but in a slowley warmed space both will come to the same temperature. The outer wax cappings will melt first, because the warm air will reach them first. (Idea: put the frames in upside down: then the cells will drain completely just as soon as the capping have gone)



Daniel Y said:


> and it keeps it for a very long time. a bucket of honey warmed to 90 to 100 degrees during extracting is still warm hours later. It was just a casual observation I made while extracting honey last year.


I'm guessing, but I don't imagine a similar bulk of melted wax would cool much faster.



Daniel Y said:


> So here is the general idea I think will take place. first honey will be beyond destroyed before wax ever melts. This is simply because I think honey is much more like the hive tool and the wax is more like you on a sunny day. That once you do actually get some wax to it's melting point it will run down and begin to collect in a pool of melted wax. this pool of melted wax will also tend to absorb heat more readily than any remaining solid wax and possibly even more readily than honey. The molten wax and scorching honey will then be robbing the majority of the heat until the honey dries out. the wax will then begin to flirt with reaching combustion temperatures.


Thank you for your theorising Daniel. Its identified an issue or two and helped me think the process and arrangements through better. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

the kid said:


> ... it takes around 8 pounds of honey to make 1 pound of wax


So how much honey can 1 lb of wax hold? (And: is that figure reliable, or someone's guess?)

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Mike, simply do it and get over it. Don't forget to shoot lots of very nice pictures of your apparatus and the very nice honey that comes out of it. Man, do it. Do not talk it to death.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> I'm thinking of building a melter that will collect honey and wax after an overnight melt, using the bottom of a small ibc as the catch tray/drain. ...heater...a small fan convector in the bottom...embedding a small electric cooker ring in a concrete slab, controlled by thermostat and relay.


Posted 07-10-2014 - that's 12 days now. Hurry up, if you keep going at that pace you will need until christmas for your project. 

Electric cooker in a concrete slab, that was a good one.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Constructive??? Are you kidding? Conversation? It seems like a monolog to me. Construction is done with your hands. That can be documented with photos and pictures. Shall I show you? Wait, I got a melter for you - I made this one myself, you know.



























































































That is the way to do things. So now it is your turn.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good pics Bernhard I think that looks exactly like what Mike will build.


----------



## Rolande

Mike, just a few thoughts, having followed the thread on and off for a while. None of it meant aggressively; you're welcome to do what you like with your own honey -no one's going to change your mind apart from yourself.

Firstly, you mention a friend, running a business by putting _everything_ through a £3000 melter; speculation on my part of course, but because of the price tag and the popularity of the machine (as a cappings melter) in some circles I'd hazard a guess and say that they're using a Swienty 'api-melter'. If I'm right, having used one of those machines for a guy some years back I'd say that there's NO way your man is making a profit unless he places absolutely no value on his own time and effort. After this last, superb, season he'll still be melting next April. If he's got a different machine let's hear what it is.

The idea of putting the complete boxes in your melter is so odd I can't even begin to imagine what you're thinking. If you feel that you've got to melt everything at least cut the combs out of the frames first. You surely don't want to be lifting (heavy) field soiled boxes into your melter. Which brings to mind your idea of melting the wax from the woodwork by turning up the heat... not sure how much 'dry' heat you'd need to achieve your goal. That's if it's realistically achievable at all. Personally I think that you're more likely to end up with a coating of wax over all your woodenware.

With regard to starting fresh comb every year, the real cost isn't necessarily in the honey which is tied up by the production of new comb but in the honey which is lost because the comb hasn't been built in time to store it and the added work of keeping on top of brood nests which are holding nectar while new comb is being built above. Anyway, there's an old copy of 'The Beekeeper's Quarterly' which has a short article by Murry McGregor (who's running one of the largest British bee farms) recording his observations over a few seasons on the difference in final honey crop between colonies running on starter strips/thin foundation/heavy foundation and old comb in the UK environment. Contact the publisher, they may be happy to sell you the back copy, what I will say is that he came out firmly in favour of drawn comb.


edit: I see that Mike and myself have cross posted and he is indeed referring to the excellent Swienty machine.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> This is what I'm on about Bernhard:
> http://www.paynesbeefarm.co.uk/uncapping-equipment/dana-api-melter/


Capacity: 30 frames (*)
Commercial operation: minimum 5,000 frames to extract. 5,000 / 30 = ~167 rounds/passes...

How much time you said one round needs? 

6 weeks?! Whew, I possibly misread this because of pure misbelief that it could be possibly true...If I needed six weeks for things to plan to build, I'd need years to put stuff together. Simply do it. You are so convinced to do the right thing, why hesitating? Just do it.

(*) http://www.elverhonning.dk/ru/Swienty/Katalog/Catalog_English_2009.pdf


----------



## Oldtimer

Rolande all those things you mentioned are costs, but to me, a major cost will be the extra labour from Mike in getting the comb re built every year. He will either have to undersuper (or nadir), or he will have to mess with ladder comb and baby every hive.

This thread is a wonderful illustration of someone wanting to reinvent the wheel, before having any experience with the proper wheel. I suspect Mike has at some point tried to use a honey extractor and it was a disaster, so he seeks a better way.

Mike, the best investment of your time at this point would be to contact someone who extracts honey small scale with an extractor, and offer to work with them for a day so you can learn how to do it efficiently.

But please go ahead and dismiss my comments, I know you will.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

So I found a post by Like Phipps who melts down full supers of honey combs in a Dani Api Melter: http://www.bbka.org.uk/members/forum.php?t=1173 (scroll down to the post).

Placing full supers means it reduces the number of frames to two supers. I reckon it is a 10 frame super, so down from 30 frames to 20 frames capacity. 

5,000 frames to extract / 20 per frames per round = makes 250 rounds. 

As is stated in the post, it needs 3 hours per round to melt it all down. That makes 750 hours of melting. 

750 hours of melting multiplied by 2.3 kWh = 1,725 kW * 0.25 €/kWh = 431 € energy costs. 

750 hours divided by a 10 hours per working day = 75 work days for the complete harvest. Man, are you kidding...that is about 13 weeks for the complete harvest. I do not know your honey over there but our honey crystallizes when set cold and there is some danger of wax moths eating through your harvest once it is taken out of the hive. Besides that is way too much time for something that can be done in days even with hobbyist equipment. And the poor quality of the honey. And the loss of ready to use drawn out honey comb.


----------



## mike bispham

Rolande said:


> Firstly, you mention a friend, running a business by putting _everything_ through a £3000 melter; speculation on my part of course, but because of the price tag and the popularity of the machine (as a cappings melter) in some circles I'd hazard a guess and say that they're using a Swienty 'api-melter'. If I'm right, having used one of those machines for a guy some years back I'd say that there's NO way your man is making a profit unless he places absolutely no value on his own time and effort. After this last, superb, season he'll still be melting next April. If he's got a different machine let's hear what it is.


Hi Roland, good to hear from you,

I suspect routine slow extraction over several months is the routine. These machines seem to extract 24 combs overnight, and I think are then turned up for a few hours to clean the frames (yes they end up with a thin wax coating, but the slots are clear and if you want to put in new foundation its much quicker).

So the method suits a business where there is a slow trickle of honey being sold all year long (maximising value over bulk sales) and there are people present most days to unload/reload/stack the cleaned combs (which don't have to be given to bees to be cleaned up before storage, and are pretty much sterilised)

That's a ten minute job. An hour a week. Using Stephens method of wooden starter strips there's nothing else to do but put them back on the hives at some approprate time.

Think that through. Boxes on in spring. Wait. Clear (1/2 minute to slip in the board). Transport & store. Pop in machine. Take out again. ( 2 minute's each). Run off honey. Put boxes away. Repeat.

You're looking at a per-hive labour outlay of ten minutes. Doesn't that make you want to look again?

I reckon that's what's going on. Something caused my guy to say, carefully, 'I reckon it cuts my labour costs by 1/3rd'. I don't think he meant extraction costs - I think he meant labour costs all in. 



Rolande said:


> The idea of putting the complete boxes in your melter is so odd I can't even begin to imagine what you're thinking.


I'm trying to push the idea of saving labour to the limit. But yes, I'm having second thoughts about this one - I think it would cane the woodwork. But plastic lifts might overcome that...



Rolande said:


> If you feel that you've got to melt everything at least cut the combs out of the frames first. You surely don't want to be lifting (heavy) field soiled boxes into your melter.


I don't really want to be messing about with individual frames in the field either. 



Rolande said:


> Which brings to mind your idea of melting the wax from the woodwork by turning up the heat... not sure how much 'dry' heat you'd need to achieve your goal. That's if it's realistically achievable at all. Personally I think that you're more likely to end up with a coating of wax over all your woodenware.


That's what these machines advise - see the link I sent a moment ago.



Rolande said:


> With regard to starting fresh comb every year, the real cost isn't necessarily in the honey which is tied up by the production of new comb but in the honey which is lost because the comb hasn't been built in time to store it and the added work of keeping on top of brood nests which are holding nectar while new comb is being built above.


You can get ahead of the curve by slow feeding, and yes, keeping some on foundation/preserved comb - I've been interspacing to discourage wild comb. I've been stockpiling brood comb so they can get away with a nest early. as I say, some of mine have put on good weight this year, while building comb.

But sure; there'll be plenty of fine-tuning to be found to try to make the system hum 



Rolande said:


> Anyway, there's an old copy of 'The Beekeeper's Quarterly' which has a short article by Murry McGregor (who's running one of the largest British bee farms) recording his observations over a few seasons on the difference in final honey crop between colonies running on starter strips/thin foundation/heavy foundation and old comb in the UK environment. Contact the publisher, they may be happy to sell you the back copy, what I will say is that he came out firmly in favour of drawn comb.


I'll look into that. 

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Capacity: 30 frames (*)
> Commercial operation: minimum 5,000 frames to extract. 5,000 / 30 = ~167 rounds/passes...


My operation: 100 hives, about 24 frames melted from each (rest spun or cut comb)

2400 frames.

My melter: 72 frames per run: 33 overnight runs, each requiring maybe 1 hour attention start to finish.

33 hours.

Different picture Bernhard isn't it? 

How long does it take you to extract 2400 frames? How much help do you need? What did your spinner cost? 



BernhardHeuvel said:


> If I needed six weeks for things to plan to build, I'd need years to put stuff together.


You might be surprised at the things you can put together if you take the time to reearch and plan them properly. Ten minutes twice a week over six weeks doesn't amount to much. 

And I'm planning AHEAD Bernahrd. I don't need to start building tfis for another 8 months IF I decide its a good idea to go ahead. If I don't it won't be time wasted - I have plenty of never built projects, and I've learned from each one.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> Simply do it. You are so convinced to do the right thing, why hesitating? Just do it.


I'm learning a little more every time I get a post and make a reply. Its adding up. I'll do it when I feel good and ready, thank you very much.


----------



## Rolande

Beekeeper's Quarterly Article:

I'll post the issue number/date later today to make referencing the article easier.


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> As is stated in the post, it needs 3 hours per round to melt it all down. That makes 750 hours of melting.


Thats a) much to fast for the good of the honey; b) the run time - not the labour time. The labour time is what matters. Load and unload: 10 minutes. Now do your sums again.



BernhardHeuvel said:


> 750 hours of melting multiplied by 2.3 kWh = 1,725 kW * 0.25 €/kWh = 431 € energy costs.


 If you put 2.3kw continuously into that box you'd be melting the casing after a couple of hours.

Mike


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> I'm learning a little more every time I get a post and make a reply. Its adding up.


A bit slow, though. 

You don't have the slightest clue what handling 2,400 frames means. Also you need to realize, that the job has to be done quick and in days. Neither month nor weeks. Also I do not think you will winter enough colonies to reach 100 hives next year, because you resist to feed your colonies you just robbed the honey off. Or do you leave the honey this year on the hives? Let alone the no-treatment "strategy". Nay, all you do is a recipe for desaster. But as a warning for others, please post a lot of pictures about what you do. Thanks.

Bernhard


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Sorry, Mike, I don't want to be bad to you. Just preventing you from a desaster. You need to feed your hives properly. You need to produce high quality honey and you need to take care of your customers. You need to do a job as quick and elegantly as possible. Or you wear yourself out, wrecking your finances and hives. That is not a good thing to experience.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

mike bispham said:


> If you put 2.3kw continuously into that box you'd be melting the casing after a couple of hours.


At least it would melt the wax. I wrote 2.3 kW*h*. On the page you linked it says: Power consumption. 

Power consumption = Consumption of electric energy is measured in watt-hours (written W·h, equal to Watt x Hour). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_energy_consumption#Overview

So I just guessed the catalog meant kWh. Because if they really meant 2,300 Ws (W = Ws) that would be incredibly low. That would be 0.000638889 kWh. With all the heating at both the bottom and top of the device that doesn't look real to me.


----------



## USMCEOD

Here are a couple of quotes attributed to the philosopher Socrates..

"Remember what is unbecoming to do is also unbecoming to speak of." 

This melting of honey / combs to most everyone on this tread is a bad idea ... most constructive critics believe this will lead to bad honey, inefficient use of comb /wax and will ultimately lead to customer dissatisfaction and the demise of one's business and or livelyhood.... I will speak of it no more..


"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled [poets] to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean." 
Socrates

I think the inspiration overrides the understanding of the advice that is being given...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

It does say kW in the specs:


> Power consumption:2.3kW/230V
> 
> http://www.paynesbeefarm.co.uk/uncapping-equipment/dana-api-melter/


The specification is written this way because that is the maximum power that the machine will draw. But it doesn't necessarily draw that much power the entire time that the switch is on. The thermostats that regulate the respective temperatures will reduce power consumption as they turn off the heating elements. 

However, one should certainly expect that upon _initial _loading of the melter, both the upper and lower heating elements would be operating simultaneously and power consumption is likely to be close to 2.3Kw, and if that continues for 1 hour, then that would be 2.3 kWh.



Since Mike expects to put 72 frames in his home designed/manufactured machine, he cannot simply copy the existing commercial product which holds 20 frames (in their supers). Upsizing a well engineered commercial product by 3 to 4 volumes is, _at a minimum_, likely to need several pre-production versions just to iron out the flaws that were overlooked in the initial upsized design. 

That is, if Mike _truly _has in mind selling a _quality _honey to his customers. 


However, with customer oriented thinking like this ...


mike bispham said:


> Theoretically it spoils honey. The vast majority of most customers will never notice the difference.


... it really isn't very important to offer a _quality _product.


:gh:

.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha, some parallels there. The Greek oracles where skilled at making utterances that were so vague and incoherent that the person paying the money was able to interpret them to mean whatever it was he wanted to hear.


----------



## Rolande

re: putting complete frames in the melter


> That's what these machines advise - see the link I sent a moment ago.


Agreed, that's what the blurb says but I don't think that makes it good practice. For the sake of a couple of seconds to cut out new-season comb I reckon that you could save yourself a lot of hassle and mess further down the line. A straight line isn't always the quickest route .

Not sure if I've missed this but do you have plans for moving the wax which you harvest? I can see that there could be a good return there -depending what you do with it. Oddly, the best in-house use for it would be to turn it into foundation! 

*Beekeeper's Quarterly article:* 

No 94; Dec 2008.

'Drawn Comb, Foundation or Starter Strips - which method gives the best honey yields?'
Murray McGregor, Scotland (used with permission of B-Line).

Admittedly, the comparative tests were done in Scotland by a company which has been built on the back of the Heather harvest but it still deserves attention, coming as it does from a man who's plainly a keen observer of bees as well as a successful honey producer.


----------



## mike bispham

Hi Roland,

I found what is probably a summary of Murray McGregor's thinking in the BEE-L archive:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/agriculture/entomology/beekeeping/bee-l/log0811b.txt

"_Over many years of experiment, many years of hearing that starter strips and new comb in the supers every year is a viable option, all this stuff that is being repeated over and over again [...]) that it does not harm your crop and improves your honey quality I have some pretty firm evidence backed conclusions, garnished over several hundred colonies and over several seasons, on the subject. I will accept that if your only focus is showbench standards you may have a point. ( Even that is moot, as my honey, bought and misrepresented as their own by amateur beekeepers, has won prizes at major shows, and it is mostly done off drawn combs these days.) However the idea that it does not harm quantity is nonsense (in OUR environment).

Drawn comb brings comfortably the best honey harvest in terms of
quantity.

THICK foundation is next best.

Thin foundation is doubtful except in big flows and should only be used
if after comb honey.

Starter strips are a disaster and a complete false economy. [...]

In a big season, or over a small number of colonies, it IS possible to
see anomalous results. The odd colony does well enough to give grounds
to think it might work.

If you want percentages worked out over many years here you go.

Take drawn DEEP comb as the baseline (they do best on that) and call it
100..the rest are percentages over several years done in the 1980s

Drawn deeps 100
Drawn shallows 79
Foundation deeps 75
Foundation shallows 60
Thin super 48
Starter strips 22_"

He goes on to supply examples. (He also, re your thought, remarks on the futility of collecting wax for sale - marginal at best in his experience, and his words here are worth repeating: 

"_You have to do your sums before assuming a thing is valuable or not_."

I'll come back to that in a mo. Meanwhile, Dave Cushman replies as follows:

"_I live roughly halfway between Murray and Chris and have a set of local
conditions that reflects this to some extent, but in the main I get less sunshine than either of them.

As far as brood comb rotation is concerned, I started out believing that renewing two combs per box per year was 'right' (because that was the message being propagated by those that I learned from).

I gradually modified my view over a twenty five year period until I now
consider 3 or 4 combs per year to be 'right' (British hives have 11
combs) giving a nominal 3 year rotation like Trevor.

Super comb has always been different for me, I do not worry too much
about the age of honey storage combs, so long as they look clean and
have not been bred in.

I have used foundation and starter strips in about equal measure and
have found very little to choose between the two as far as productivity
is concerned, which could be a reflection of being halfway between
Murray and Chris.

If I were starting all over again I would probably use 5.3 mm plasticell foundation for honey combs and would also use it in mating nucs, providing that the bees would draw it properly."_

So there is conflicting high-quality evidence to hand.

One thing that occurs to me is that different strains of bee might handle wax building better. It might be that Dave Cushman (and I) had/have bees that work well on starter strips, while bees that have been raised to take advantage of foundation and drawn comb don't.

Also, Murray McGregor seems to me to be speaking largely about heather - and there might be a significant difference in that.

Its possible that the two (UK, modest) 'commercial' beekeepers who have testified to me the benefits of melting are using it in conjuntion with plastic farms/foundation(/started cells). That might well alter the yield economics dramatically. Obviously I have more enquiries to make.

More broadly: I have to look ahead to try to see what it is I want from my business, and what is attainable in the short term given the contraints on financing I have. I have at present a hand operated 6-frame spinner in a bee-proof room of very limited size. The idea of running a larger centrifugal extracter in there is difficult, even if I took the decision to borrow money to buy one. Building a bigger processing room is probably - but not certainly - out of the question for now.

And then there's the question of what I want to be doing with my time - a mix of both what I enjoy doing and what helps me achieve my aims. Do I want to spend whole weeks uncapping and spinning frames? Not really, no. I like being outdoors, and having a varied sort of day. The more I can remove tedious processing work from my operation the happier I'll be. Bottling and labeling is bad enough. When I've jumped the income potential up, and can afford to consider paid help, I can look again.

Then, the big one: _what will result in the greatest hourly income_? 

It seems to me that I could sacrifice perhaps 40% of my potential yield _and yet make a better hourly rate_. 

That will free me up to do other things - pay closer attention to breeding matters, develop higher value sales outlets, seek out more and better pollination contracts and permanant sites, develop other aspects of my smallholding. 

Do you see what I mean: absolute yield isn't the sole factor here. To update Murray's spot-on statement:

'_You have to do your sums before assuming a thing is valuable or not' - and then ask yourself whether the sums represent the whole story._ 

Thanks for your posts Roland. They've prompted me to ask deeper questions about what I want and how to go about getting it. 

All best,

Mike


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> That will free me up to do other things - pay closer attention to breeding matters, [HIGHLIGHT]develop higher value sales outlets[/HIGHLIGHT], seek out more and better pollination contracts and permanant sites, develop other aspects of my smallholding.


It seems quite likely that "higher value sales outlets" would expect to sell a premium product, and even Mike recognizes that a _professionally designed_ and manufactured melter produces a different honey product than a homebuilt kludge ....



mike bispham said:


> It seem to me there's honey from 'melted wax', and then there's honey from an expensive purpurse-built melting out machine: and they are two different things.


But is Mike proposing to purchase a carefully designed and tested melter? :s

Hardly.  Too expensive.



As clearly stated throughout this thread, he is going to build an insulated box and stick some heaters in it ....


mike bispham said:


> Yes, I expect this will require some attention. Perhaps a chickenwire mesh holding fallen chunks up in the warmest area will solve that one. [HIGHLIGHT]Gunk[/HIGHLIGHT] will collect in the first tray, piling up and draining (like cappings do) into the cooler sump beneath.
> 
> I was thinking of using several fan heaters, but perhaps a mixer fan or two will be helpful as well.


Mike's honey _customers _will be the quality control department! 


:gh:


. . . higher value sales outlets . . .


----------



## Stephenpbird

Mike do you have "Honey by the Ton" by Oliver Field from northern bee books. Quite good actually but the last three pages have a description and drawings of a honey and wax melting tray plus a honey and wax separator. Worth a look.


----------



## mike bispham

Stephenpbird said:


> Mike do you have "Honey by the Ton" by Oliver Field from northern bee books. Quite good actually but the last three pages have a description and drawings of a honey and wax melting tray plus a honey and wax separator. Worth a look.


I've invested in a copy, thanks Stephen

Mike (UK)


----------



## sweetas

mike bispham said:


> Does anyone have any knowledge of melting out frames they could share? I'm thinking of building a melter that will collect honey and wax after an overnight melt, using the bottom of a small ibc as the catch tray/drain. The main issue is the type of heater. I guess I could just put a small fan convector in the bottom, but it seems dodgy - a bit of a fire hazard. I was thinking of embedding a small electric cooker ring in a concrete slab, controlled by thermostat and relay. Or maybe I could buy some suitable bar elements.
> 
> Best might be a square tank of water and immersion heater underneath - but getting hold of a tank seems unlikely.
> 
> Does anyone know of a manufacturer of small units of this sort - mayby 24 frame capacity?
> 
> Mike (UK)



Not sure if I can understand your logic for doing it. However. Three incandescent globes in a old freezer can certainly get to 100 C . Much too hot for honey. So try 3 for awhile then two then one to hold the temperature.

By having 1 globe on one swith and two globes on teh other. you and have 1,2,or 3 globes on. A good fan helps move the air around.


----------



## mike bispham

sweetas said:


> Three incandescent globes in a old freezer can certainly get to 100 C . Much too hot for honey. So try 3 for awhile then two then one to hold the temperature.


Or use a thermostat....



sweetas said:


> By having 1 globe on one swith and two globes on teh other. you and have 1,2,or 3 globes on. A good fan helps move the air around.


I'm probably going to go with something a bit more direct, like a couple of fan heaters (controlled by thermostat) and another fan to ensure even distribution at all times. Chest freezer, yes, likely - an ideal ready-made solution.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

A chest freezer for a wax melter? :shhhh:


----------



## odfrank

Don't most freezers have a plastic interior that could not take the heat of wax melting? I have been looking for a glass door freezer to make a solar wax melter and they all have plastic interiors.


----------



## KQ6AR

The vinyl window on my wax melter hasn't fallen apart yet. Been using it a couple years. 
It gets over 200F


----------



## odfrank

KQ6AR said:


> The vinyl window on my wax melter hasn't fallen apart yet. Been using it a couple years.
> It gets over 200F


But is is half on the outside of the melter, not on the inside.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh good, all safe then.

Mike can set up a wax melting bath inside his deep freeze and heat it to over 200 F, no worries.

EDIT- Thought I better add that was a joke, just incase someone thought they might try this.


----------



## rolftonbees

Why not a solar setup. I bet you could use a green house window opener to help control the temp.


----------



## odfrank

Solar heat will melt honey combs less than half the year in my climate, and slowly at that.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

odfrank... Far less than half the year in my area also.

cchoganjr


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> I'm currently thinking about building my melting on a trailer so it can be loaded straight off hives, taken to a power source, run overnight, unloaded, reloaded (straight off hives again), and the goods taken for storage and re-waxing (mostly starterstrip).


Mike, its is been about 6 months since you told us about your plan to melt honey out of your combs instead of using an extractor. 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ar-for-melting-out-honey-directly-from-frames

Did you go ahead with your melter construction plans? Seems like winter would be a good time to build it ....


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I also wonder how that project went. (As well as how many of those survivor bees actually survived the winter. Before winter it was 75 hives, no?)


----------



## snapper1d

I read this post from the beginning and saw where someone was concerned about HMF in heated honey.If there were enough HMF in heated honey there would be warnings posted on it.With all the consumer warning they are putting on everything now days this surely be one if there was much danger.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

I would like to believe he has some bees, very little evidence though, even when requested.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?302345-To-make-it-real

HMF is toxic to bees, not to humans.


----------



## Barry

That's better. So, it looks like we're all waiting to hear from Mike how this project is coming along.

Mike?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Betterbee offers an interesting Lyson '_Honey Melter_' ....









http://www.betterbee.com/lyson-honey-processing-equipment/lyson3210-honey-melter.asp


Its intended to go into/melt a barrel of honey.


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> That's better. So, it looks like we're all waiting to hear from Mike how this project is coming along.
> 
> Mike?


Thank you Barry. 

Last year's experiment, following the advice of a local commercial beekeeper, was perfectly successful. I left half a dozen lifts of old/deformed/unframed/crystallized comb over a mesh overnight, draining to a large bucket, with a fan heater blowing in the bottom. The next day I had about 80lbs of (cool - yes cool) honey ready to be warmed, filtered and packed, and a load of largely clean but sticky frames and boxes ready to go back on for cleaning. (This year they were very easy to re-wax)

I was unsure about how to work this year. I could have built a larger, better controlled and mobile model, and found a location nearby where I could do overnight extractions. That would give me much more time to focus on straightening out the growing apiary, make boxes, develop more products and sales outlets, make increase and so on. This is important stuff, and even if there was a serious cost disadvantage to melting (due to lost comb outweighing labour saving) it was worth considering. (I can do this because I'm a serious maker of home-built gear - I have a reasonably well equipped workshop, and 45 years experience of making up stuff to need.) 

I hedged my bets by buying a (bargain) lathe with attached speed-controlled motor (in case I went for a home made big extractor) and decided to wait until I could see how the year (and the crop) was shaping up, and to hedge my bets by loading supers with alternate wired foundation and starter strip, and go for some top bars only if things got hectic. 

In February I broke my left index finger badly (while making floors), and had to rethink everything. And things just drifted until, last week, up popped a nice cheap, reasonably large radial extractor. So this year I'm planning to keep comb where I can, sell the best of the foundation free as cut comb, and melt out deformed comb in my 5-minutes-to-build melter. 

Its all so sensible you could let them mock me for being _too_ sensible Barry, couldn't you?

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Juhani Lunden said:


> I would like to believe he has some bees, very little evidence though, even when requested.
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?302345-To-make-it-real
> 
> HMF is toxic to bees, not to humans.


I have now had time to respond. http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?302345-To-make-it-real&p=1277326#post1277326

Let me know whether any of that changes your mind in any way.

So there's no HMF issue (unless letting the bees clean up after)?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

mike bispham said:


> And things just drifted until, last week, up popped a nice cheap, reasonably large radial extractor.


A much better idea. 

Bear in mind everybody focuses on the extractor. But a good uncapping set up is equally important and can be incredibly time wasting if not thought through, so that will likely be your next project.


----------



## Rygar

Great Thread! I learned alot... thanks


----------

