mineral oil

[dp]

Eman posted a message that he bought his mineral oil at Wal-mart and K-mart. Tonight at Wal-mart I decided to check out the mineral oil. The 16oz. bottles that I saw had this on the label(Mineral Oil USP). That's it. Is this the same mineral oil that is being used?

[abeille]

Hi dp

you might want to read this thread as it gives a lot of good infos about mineral oil.
http://www.beesource.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000154.html

Hoping that will help answer your question.

Hugo

[Michael Bush]

If it says USP and it has directions for use as a laxitive, yes, it's FGMO. That's what I'm using.

[cgytm]

"If it says USP and it has directions for use as a laxitive, yes, it's FGMO. That's what I'm using."

NO! YOU ARE WRONG!

These are the key elements about oils sold in a pharmacies or Wallmart k-Mart etc.. :

"Now what about USP (USA) and BP (British) standards? Those standards are pharmaceutical standards that relates to the way the oil is produced and specifically are related to the edibility of the product. They are closely related to the "food grade" concept. BUT there is no relation between USP/BP standards and density or viscosity of the oil. Both light and heavy oils can be USP/BP! Let's make it clear. Contrary to most opinions, oil comming out of pharmacy (laxative oil) are NOT light oils. Most of them are heavy oils and DO NOT MEET DR. Rodriguez recommandations. Those pharmacy oils that can be identified as "light oil" are normally associated with cosmetic products and have other ingredients included like perfumes. So an USP oil does not mean automatically that it is an acceptable oil... and by far. As a general rule oils comming from pharmacy should be avoided if they can not be clearly identified as meeting CAS 8042-47-5 and nothing eles eis added."

Finally:

"As a conclusion and in order to be sure that someone buys the right oil, everyone should look on the can that the oil meets specifically the CAS 8042-47-5 standard. If not on the can, check on Internet. Most of them have their specs published. If you can't find it don't buy it. DO NOT rely on words like USP/BP, food grade, light oil etc... This is not enough."


------------------
Normand Choiniere
Mont-Tremblant region, Quebec, Canada.
http://consultus.qc.ca/valmiel

[Juandefuca]

Norman
You are correct with your analisys and advise
I had information by Penreco in 1999 that THEY selling mineral oil to ONE pharmaceutical manufacturer which distributes with there OWN label to drug stores . This would be ONE instant where the laxative ( Or whatever use) could be used for our FGMO purpose.
All the rest is questionable and does not guarantie the validity of usage .
I also bought one bottle of MO at a drubstore but use it for machinery lubrication only ( Extractor bearings).

Penreco at that time was kind enough to send me a sample of their product. The only reason why I did not continue to use their product was the 5 gal minimum order .
STE oil ships in lesser quatities .
As I stated before , we buy the 5 gal quantity lately because of our increased use and split the quantity .
I have no quarrels with either supplier and the quality is equal because of manufacturing specs .
JDF

[Michael Bush]

>>"If it says USP and it has directions for use as a laxitive, yes, it's FGMO. That's what I'm using."
>NO! YOU ARE WRONG!

No, I am not. I made two statements both of which are true.

1. It IS Food Grade Mineral Oil if it says USP and is used for a laxiive. Are you disputing that?

2. It IS what I am using. I am quite certain I know what I am using. Are you saying that I don't know what I am using?

Whether this is the "correct" oil is different discussion and you have stated your opinion on that. Apparently that is what you are really saying "no" to.

I am having very good luck with it myself and we have heard from many others on this forum who are using it with success also.

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Good morning folks.
Michael Bush, could you please send me your e-mail address?
Thanks so much.
Dr. Rodriguez

[Dave W]

Greetings . . .

What are the specification of an oil that meets CAS 8042-47-5?

Dave W

[cgytm]

"What are the specification of an oil that meets CAS 8042-47-5?"

Check this thread :
http://www.beesource.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000154.html

You will have the key elements as far as this group is concerned (edibility, viscosity and density). For the detailed technical "specs" or characteristics you can get them if you want but you will have to pay for it as the CAS organisation sells them. You can have a pretty good idea ( chemical caracteristics, safety eklements as flash point etc...) by looking at the specs of oils already meeting those "specs".

Now:

>>"If it says USP and it has directions for use as a laxitive, yes, it's FGMO. That's what I'm using."
>NO! YOU ARE WRONG!

"No, I am not."

USP (or BP) is a pharmaceutical standard that has no absolute and even direct relation with was before FGMO or now is CAS. There are elements or characteristics that are specific to each. So simply said each standard doesn't cover the same reality. As I said as a general rule USP (BP) oils (both heavy and low density) as far as edibility is concerned are very near with what was FGMO and now CAS is but on other aspects they can be quite different. FGMO and USP are not (let's say 90% of what is on shelves and as far as density is concerned - especially oils used as laxative) are not at all the same. What DR Rodriguez is speaking of by recommending FGMO and what he really mentionned is a low density oil and USP is a HIGH density oil (laxative version).

This is why I am saying a big NO to your recommandation. When its says USP and it has directions for use as a laxative, NO, it's not FGMO as understood by this group and as per Dr Rodriguez requirements. On the other hand do whatever you want. You can use whatever oil you wish but don't tell someone basically asking "Am I right?" that he is right when he is not...



------------------
Normand Choiniere
Mont-Tremblant region, Quebec, Canada.
http://consultus.qc.ca/valmiel

[Michael Bush]

>This is why I am saying a big NO to your recommandation. When its says USP and it has directions for use as a laxative, NO, it's not FGMO as understood by this group and as per Dr Rodriguez requirements. On the other hand do whatever you want. You can use whatever oil you wish but don't tell someone basically asking "Am I right?" that he is right when he is not...

I am not arguing anything about density or even if it is the "correct" oil. If I have time one of these days I will measure the density of the USP oil and see if it is in the range recommended by Dr. Rodriguez (.85 to .86). If anyone wishes to test their USP oil to see what the density is, you need to know what exactly one liter (not counting the container) weighs. If one liter weights 850 to 860 grams you are precisely the right density. But I carefully made two statments, none of which has anything to do with density.

1. It is FGMO. It is food grade and it is mineral oil therefore it is food grade mineral oil.
2. It is what I am (and many others are) using with very good results.

If anyone wishes to be absolutly sure about the weight/viscocity/density of the oil you should either weight one liter to see what it weighs (850 to 860 grams) or buy the bulk from the recommended suppliers. http://www.beesource.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000088.html

[Juandefuca]

Wow !!!!
Is there nothing else to report ?
What I stated in the forgoing post is a fact as encountered in 1999.
That does NOT mean that Other pharmaceuticals are NOT using the recommended viscosity in their product under their OWN label. Therefore it is entirely possible to utilize those oils off the shelf . The trouble is to be certain and you cannot be ,unless you do the afore mentioned testing of weight. It is as simple as that .
We hope we can put this issue to rest and report on findings what color differences dropped mites have , dead or alive are and whether you see any dents or otherwise damaged corpses .
happy oiling
JDF

[Dave W]

Greetings . . .

May I quote from the 18th edition, Machinery's Handbook, p659-660:

"Viscosity is related directly to the flow time of a fluid through a viscosimeter capillary. By multiplying the viscosity by the density of the fluid at the test temperature, one can determine the absolute viscosity. Since, in the metric system, the mass density is equal to the specific gravity, the conversion from kinematic to absolute viscosity is generally made in this system and then converted to English units where required. The densities of typical lubricating fluids with comparable viscosities at 100 deg. F. and 210 deg. F. are shown below.

SAE 10W:
Viscosity @ 100'F=41 Centistrokes
Viscosity @ 210'F=06 Centistrokes
Density @ 60'F=.870 g/cc

Please Note: (DW)
Viscosity (how thick/flow time) changes w/ temperature.
Specified Density of ALL petroleum oils is measured at 60 deg. F.

I dont think we have ALL the answers yet!

Dave W

[Michael Bush]

To clarify one point, there are several references to both .85 to .86 density and .80 to .86 density. Dr. Rodriguez has recently stated that .80 to .86 is correct.

I'm curious how much a few degress in temperature makes in the measurment of density. I know it makes a large difference in viscocity, but am not aware of that marked of a difference in density. Still if that's the official temp that would be the best way to make sure.

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Good morning from Spain.
I promised that I would not contribute to this forum in order that other contributors would not get upset with "the way" I make my postings. However, I feel that I should provide some help regarding density of mineral oil used as FGMO which is of significance if you are making emulsions.
Food grade mineral oil of .86 density weighs 860 grams per liter at 60 degrees F.
I did not go into all the details that I have had to take into consideration in order to achieve a "home made" emulsion. The reason for this is that I thought that most users would be satisfied with the results if and when they tried to make the eumulsion. Before going on, please believe me, laboratory made emulsions are very expensive, hence the benefit of being able to prepare them at home. I also trusted that readers would follow directions given in my protocol in order for their emulsions to work. This is very important if one is using other ingredients, (as I am now doing), in order to determine the strength of the end preparation.
One has to know the density of the oil used (grams per liter) in order to be able to figure out the strength of the end result. I chose Drakeol 35 and STE Crystal white mineral oil,
1. because they are food grade,
2. because they weigh 860 grams per liter
3. because at this density the use of other formula ingredients are easy to add and end with the desired type of emulsion. Please take into consideration as I have explained many times before, that it took many trials and tests before I arrived at the exact quantities of the ingredients to obtain an emulsion with the most effective consistency to apply to the cords and for the bees to accept readily.
4. As mentioned above, using .86 density mineral oil made it very simple to add thymol to the the formula and be able to keep the strength of the thymol at a low percentage level, (3.79 %)and low priced. At this strength, thymol has proven to be effective against honey bee parasites but not toxic to honey bees.
Please take into consideration that if a higher density mineral oil is utilized, say 300 density, or 3000 grams per liter, it would require a lot more thymol to arrive at that strength hence the final product would no longer be cost-effective which has been my main concern at all times since the beginning of my work: to provide cost-effective measures to all beekeepers. I am proud to say that I have been able to achieve my goal so far.
I hope that I have contributed to clarify the need for using .86 density mineral oil.
I think that procuring mineral oil in small quantities might be a real problem for most hobbyist and small beekeepers. I would like to suggest that one way to get around this obstacle is by pooling your resources, as neighbors, as club members, etc and order larger quantities that you may be able to subdivide among yourselves. I know that both Penreco and STE Oil will sell as low as one gallon orders.
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez

[Dave W]

Greetings Dr. Rodrigues,

Thank you for posting a courteous, polite, and VERY informative addition to this thread (9/9/03, 6:18PM).

When 'details' are offered in this manner, they are easy to understand and hopefully will increase EVERYONES knowledge of FGMO.

Many here, would like to see YOUR FGMO become a 'silver bullet'.

Lets work TOGETHER. All we can offer is a lot of questions. But, maybe the answers will help, each in some small way, to make 'beekeeping w/ FGMO' better.

Dave W

[Bob Russell]

I have the greatest respect for DR Pedro and have been liasing with him for the last 14 months and monitoring this board with the view to gaining approval for use of FGMO in New Zealand beehives.I can't agree more with Dave that we must all work together.For the above reasons I have decided to join this list.My first contribution will be a list to differentiate uses.Compliance to the Code of Federal Regulations
21CFR172.878, 21CFR172.880 = Direct use in food
21CFR178.3620, 21CFR178.3700 = Indirect use in food
21CFR573.680, 21CFR573.720 = Use in animal feed
21CFR178.3620(b) = Indirect use in food (technical oil)

The CAS # 8042-47-5 relative to line one of the above list = light white mineral oil.DR Pedro's summing up to varify you have the correct density to his protocol in my opinion can not be faulted.

BOB.


[This message has been edited by Bob Russell (edited October 07, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bob Russell (edited October 07, 2003).]

[Dr. Pedro Rodriguez]

Hello folks.
Just a short memo in reference to a remark/question posted on the forum and many questions addressed to my e-mail box regarding use of thymol "if FGMO seemed sufficient for its purpose by itself."
As I have explained in previous posts, FGMO's action on mites is through interference with their biological functions, which in itself might be a slow process, while thymol has a more dramatic, faster action on mites.
Addition of thymol to the FGMO formula accelerates the rate at which the mites are affected, a factor which is considered to be very valuable especially in cases where the colonies have a heavy varroa population. The combination of FGMO thymol enhances mite removal from the colonies, perhaps assisting in the efficacy of FGMO (factor that is being considered during this trial). Addition of thymol does not alter the non-chemical parasite management goals.
Best regards.
Dr. Rodriguez

[WineMan]

Coyote---

I think you hit the nail on the head. US is full of bees on a commercial/sideline and hobby level and has ample research and economic resources but we cant come up with squat. Everyone other country is way the heck ahead of us. Guess I would expect Europe to be having lived with mites longer than US but what about Canada and NZ.

I think there are a number of underlying factors....fragmentation of the US beekeeping industry, general independence of the folks in this country especially agriculture. And the biggie...the lack of economic power that beekeepers have in the grand scheme of things.