Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 345
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    So, using an average of 12.4 ug/g of total pesticides in wax, that's about 110 ug of pesticide per wax coated frame. Wax foundation would contain 100s of ug of total pesticide per sheet.

    So, at least we have a baseline showing that we can eliminate milligram quantities of pesticides from hives by going foundationless.

    Not bad at all.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by BayHighlandBees View Post
    SantaFe,
    I think for concentrations to get higher and higher from recycling wax it would require a much thicker amount to be applied to new plastic foundation than is. If you are only applying enough to coat the plastic, I don't see how that would ever move the dial on increasing the concentrations. Perhaps wax foundations might have more possibility of a cyclical effect?
    Bay,
    Unfortunately, that logic would not be accurate. The thickness of a coating of 9 grams of wax (which if I'm correct was a measurement of the thin coating on plastic, so it would be much more for straight wax foundation) would have nothing to do with microgram or nanogram levels of pesticide residue in the wax. When you're talking about adding 1/10,000 of anything to another product, it is very unlikely to change the physical characteristics of that product, unless it is a specific type of chemical for thickening or thinning fluids.

    Another thing I've seen others say on this thread is, "well, the bees were OK for the previous owner of the wax, so it should be OK for me." Another false assumption. None of us knows where that wax came from or the condition of the bees that it came from. Have you heard there's this thing going around called CCD? Who knows what the real cause is? Is it possible that increasing contaminant levels in wax could be a contributor? I would think so and the studies seem to suggest that. That wax that you purchase as "clean wax" could have come from dead hives as well as well hives, you never know.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    With about 35,000 bees per average hive...

    That means that there are at least 30 ng of pesticides per bee in the total wax foundation/wax coated plastic frames of a typical hive.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Correction: After reading more than the abstract of the paper, I see that the LD50 for the high toxicity pesticides is less than or equal to two micrograms per bee, not nanograms, so that is why hives aren't completely dying out at the current pesticide residue levels...sorry, should have checked that myself instead of assuming the previous post was correct.

    That being said, the issue of the paper, and the issue for beekeepers using contaminated wax, is "sub-lethal" effects, not lethal effects.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    The study only used one source of contaminated wax, so it would be interesting to see some analyses of commercially available wax, or wax coated plastic, foundations in order to have a clearer picture of what is being introduced into the hive. It is quite possible that the levels are much lower, as the wax in the study was taken directly from commercial keepers who treated. In contrast, if the wax was sourced from a keeper who treated with higher or more frequent doses of pesticides, the levels could be much higher. Depending on the sources of wax that commercial foundation suppliers use, the concentrations of pesticide residue could be higher or lower. No way to tell without direct testing.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    '...sorry, should have checked that myself instead of assuming the previous post was correct.'

    ?

    Try to remember that a typical bee weighs in at about 0.1 grams. There are 2 papers involved Wu et al., and Mullins et al. .

    Different pesticides have different LD50s. Also, they've included information on maximum, mean and median values.

    Some of the wax did come in at above the LD50 for the particular pesticide listed.

    What can I say? I can read a data table.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    PS: You do know that you can use the information given in the data tables to estimate what fraction of wax comb in hives will be at or above the LD50 for each pesticide?

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    There are 2 papers involved Wu et al., and Mullins et al. .

    Different pesticides have different LD50s. Also, they've included information on maximum, mean and median values.

    Some of the wax did come in at above the LD50 for the particular pesticide listed.

    What can I say? I can read a data table.
    The paper I read does not contain LD50s for particular pesticides. If you are referring to Table 1 of "Sub-Lethal Effects of Pesticide Residues in Brood Comb on Worker Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Development and
    Longevity", tha max, mean, and median are only referring to the pesticide residues in the particular contaminated comb they used for the experiment. They have nothing to do with the LD50.

    The only reference to LD50 is from the "toxicity honey bee" column, which has footnotes at the bottom explaining the range of LD50s. Technically, one of those "high" rated pesticides, which are defined as less than or equal to 2 ug/bee could be down in the ng/bee range as 2 nanograms is less than 2 micrograms, but that would be a pretty huge range.

    Was the 2 ng/bee a reference from a source other than this paper we have been discussing? We are definitely not reading the same table or one of us isn't reading it right.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    The LD50 value for a particular pesticide, miticide, etc are a set number and you would typically only see a range of numbers for LD50 if it was in the particular study that determined the LD50 value.

    You should be able to find the MSDS (material safety data sheet) for any of the chemicals through a google search.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Although I can't say I've ever seen an LD50 for bees on any MSDS sheet, so never mind. You'd probably have to dig up the research referenced at the bottom of Table 1 of the study.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Both papers have tables with LD50 values listed.

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    Both papers have tables with LD50 values listed.
    No, they don't. You should really go back and look at the tables. I think you are confused.

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Try downloading the pdf versions, they're easier to read.

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    Try downloading the pdf versions, they're easier to read.
    I have the pdf version of "Sub-Lethal Effects of Pesticide Residues in Brood Comb on Worker Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Development and Longevity" - Judy Y. Wu, Carol M. Anelli, Walter S. Sheppard*, found here, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0014720


    There are 3 tables in that paper, none of which have LD50 values listed. I really don't want to waste time arguing about facts. Anyone else care to chime in? Help, please.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Table 1. Pesticide residues detected in treatment combs (n = 13) used to rear worker bees in experiments.
    Table 2. Total amount of pesticide residues detected in five pairs of control and treatment combs before & after experiments.
    Table 3. Pesticide residues contained in treatment brood comb with observed delayed development of worker honey bees.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    The second paper has a table with LD50s.

    Try reading the column headings.

    You'll see one with LD50 in one of the tables.

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    WLC, I'd like you to tell me exactly which table in the referenced report above has LD50 in any heading, any column, etc. Just saying it is there doesn't make it there.

    LOD and LD50 are two very different things.

    I think you should consider trying all of the suggestions you seem to have for me because it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot, in fact, read a data table.

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    The LD50s are listed as ranges in the Wu paper: Low, medium, and high.

    The LD50s are listed in ppbs in the mullin paper in table 4.

    Sergei had you pegged.

    "I think you should consider trying all of the suggestions you seem to have for me because it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot, in fact, read a data table. "

    That comment gets you on the ignore list.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    The LD50s are listed as ranges in the Wu paper: Low, medium, and high.

    That comment gets you on the ignore list.
    That is exactly what I said above and the opposite of what you said.

    So, now I'm the jerk for pointing that out. Oh no, you're going to ignore me...whaaaaaa

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

    Still no reference for LD50 of 2 ng/bee??? Don't see that in either paper.

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads