Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

[BayHighlandBees]

Now if someone could find a viable way to decontaminate beeswax, then the debate would be over (and maybe small cell would have better chance).

Actually since we're on the topic of neonics I realized after my post yesterday that there is an easy way to remove / reduce it from the wax in your comb. The half life of most neonics can be up to three years when its not exposed to sunlight (since it has to hydrolyze to breakdown). However, when exposed to sun light, it photodegrades significantly (15 days in soil) and photodegrades extremely fast in water exposed to light (half life of only 4 hours)!

Based on that it would seem to me that the best way to reduce/remove the toxin from the wax is to regularly cycle out your comb using a solar wax melter to melt the wax (since it will rapidly photodegrade the neonic chemicals). The wax reintroduced to the hive would have significantly less neonic in it.

For those who are worried about the chemicals in the plastic wax coating, you could leave your new frames in a sunny window a week or two before putting it in your hive for the same effect.

here's the link (provided by the california dept of pesticide regulation)
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/rcd/imidacloprid.pdf

[WLC]

Good thinking BHB.

There was a wax proccessing outfit that claimed non chemical decontamination of beeswax a few years ago.

I haven't been able to determine if they're still around however.

Does anyone know if such an operation still exists?

Barry,

The 'grad school smarts' remark isn't snide.

I was looking for the 'roll eyes' smiley but couldn't find it.

[sqkcrk]

Based on that it would seem to me that the best way to reduce/remove the toxin from the wax is to regularly cycle out your comb using a solar wax melter to melt the wax (since it will rapidly photodegrade the neonic chemicals). The wax reintroduced to the hive would have significantly less neonic in it.

you could leave your new frames in a sunny window a week or two before putting it in your hive for the same effect.

So, one would need to solar melt combs and then make their own foundation?

You aren't really serious about that last statement, are you? Brainstorming maybe? I do that all the time, hoping some wild idea will find merit.

[sqkcrk]

There was a wax proccessing outfit that claimed non chemical decontamination of beeswax a few years ago.

Does anyone know if such an operation still exists?

I don't know if they are, but imagine the cost/benefit analysis. What would it cost and who would be able to afford the expensive wax after the decontamination? Being the variety of chemicals showing up in wax, wouldn't one have troubles removing all of them w/out degrading the wax into some other thing other than wax? Whatever that would be.

[SantaFeBeek]

"There's enough information in each of the studies to do an estimate for the fractions in wax and honey (no royal jelly, but it will do)."

No way to determine any type of transfer coefficient from wax to any other substance or to bees from these studies. If you think there is, then prove it. Otherwise, hokum!

[deknow]

One of the most surprising things to come out of the Penn state.work is the pollen.
They started trapping pollen because they thought they might find.neonocs (they tended not to find them except in extreme conditions)....instead they found high levels.of fluvalinate and.coumaphos in the trapped.pollen ...pollen that had never seen the inside of.a.hive. presumably this has to do.with the wetting of the pollen during collection.

Deknow

[Solomon Parker]

Based on that it would seem to me that the best way to reduce/remove the toxin from the wax is to regularly cycle out your comb using a solar wax melter to melt the wax

That's exactly what I've been doing for years. But I just sell it. Anybody want to buy? I'm sure I can sufficiently jack up the price. I've been on the soap and candle market, but selling to nervous beekeepers could be far more lucrative.

[Rick 1456]

OMG,
Burning and washing! Another thread maybe

[WLC]

sqkcrk:

If I remember correctly, they never got to the 99% contaminant free mark. Just wondering if the outfit 'survived' the beeswax market.

SFB:

The max concentration data might be enough to determine fractions in wax and honey. It won't be a proper coefficient without plotting the full distribution for each fraction over time however.

Sol:

Buy a small cell foundation mill. You'll clean up.

[SantaFeBeek]

"The max concentration data might be enough to determine fractions in wax and honey. It won't be a proper coefficient without plotting the full distribution for each fraction over time however."

Not looking for fractions in wax and honey...that is simple. Those were treated colonies...no way to attibute concentrations in honey directly from wax vs. from direct treatment.

[BayHighlandBees]

So, one would need to solar melt combs and then make their own foundation?

You aren't really serious about that last statement, are you? Brainstorming maybe? I do that all the time, hoping some wild idea will find merit.

I'm suggesting putting your frames on a rotation (perhaps a 3 - 4 years) after which you melt the wax in a solar melter and give it back to the bees to use. Doesn't seem that far fetched or different than what a lot of beekeepers already do.

[Solomon Parker]

If I had gone with a foundation mill at the beginning, that's what I'd be doing. Now that I've gone with plastic I doubt I'll ever get one unless it's pretty near free.

[sqkcrk]

One of the most surprising things to come out of the Penn state.work is the pollen.
They started trapping pollen because they thought they might find.neonocs (they tended not to find them except in extreme conditions)....instead they found high levels.of fluvalinate and.coumaphos in the trapped.pollen ...pollen that had never seen the inside of.a.hive. presumably this has to do.with the wetting of the pollen during collection.

Deknow

How soon after getting the bees did they trap pollen? Maryanne Frazier did speculate that some of the contamination of wax originated from the use of miticides in the hives which produced the package bees.

[sqkcrk]

after which you melt the wax in a solar melter and give it back to the bees to use. Doesn't seem that far fetched or different than what a lot of beekeepers already do.

How would you do that? In what form? Are you saying that a lot of beekeepers give their bees wax to build comb with?

[SantaFeBeek]

How would you do that? In what form? Are you saying that a lot of beekeepers give their bees wax to build comb with?

I think they were previously talking about creating their own foundation with a mill after the solar melter, not just putting the melted wax in the hive.

[delber]

WOW!!! After taking about 3 or 4 working days worth of breaks I'm finally through this thread. I must say first off that I haven't read or even looked at the research papers. I honestly don't have the mind for it. I have a hard time following all of the charts that I have looked at in the past so I don't waste my time or frustration trying. I am however using foundationless frames. Why? When I started my wife wanted a "coupon". Well not needing wax foundation was a coupon, but before that I researched and found that there was chemicals in wax and the other issues with bees of the same size. Looking at trachial mites a larger bee would be suspect, however a smaller bee wouldn't. I thought this was interesting. I put God in the equation. If he designed it a certain way then I want to run with that. So I figure that foundationless is the most "natural" way that I could come up with. I haven't done any treatments other than brood breaks, and powdered sugar last year and my few hives are doing well. I like going to my hives and watching one big bee come in and land on a bee that's about 1/3 of the size that is her sister. I find that very cool. If one size takes 1/2 of a day or more longer in the cell that gives varroa that much more time IMO. What's up with the foundationless hype? That's what IMO. It's cheaper, cleaner, and more natural. Is it the best? Well that's what has been discussed at GREAT length by many of you that are much better equipped than I. It seems to be best for ME, but I can't speak for you or anyone else. Commercial is a whole other ball of wax.

[Paul McCarty]

Very well said Delber. It works for me too. May be a little messy at times and take more effort, but I also don't run 6000 hives like a factory.

[cerezha]

For those who are worried about the chemicals in the plastic wax coating, you could leave your new frames in a sunny window a week or two before putting it in your hive for the same effect.

It is an interesting idea. Couple of things:
You were talked about "hydrolysis". Well, it requires water and some energy to break the chemical bond (refer to organic chemistry course). Water is water, energy usually comes from UV light - it splits H2O and creates aggressive species which attacked the chemical bond and eventually breaks it. So, you need water and UV at the chemical you want to break. Wax is not a water at all! It actually, prevents water from entering (it is called hydrophobic). Similarly, wax works as a shield for UV light.

The bottom line is that this approach may work on VERY thin films of wax at the surface (water from the air and some UV). I would imagine that plastic foundation with VERY thin film of wax (0.2-0.5 g per frame or less) may benefit from the direct sunlight. Not on the "window" - regular glass removes ALL UV - bake frame 10 days on direct sun on one side and than - another 10 days on another side. It would probably decompose 10-20% of bad chemicals (potentially creating new bad species). It would also breaks weaker bonds in your plastic - you sort of will artificially age your frame.

Solar melter probably would not work for the reasons explained above - no water inside the body of wax and possible no UV if ordinary glass used. Remember that you need both - water and UV in the same place at the same time and chemical needs to be here as well.


Good luck with backing frames, looks like a new business is coming - naturally treated foundations!

Note - all above would not work for frames with drawn comb for numerous reasons!
Sergey

[BayHighlandBees]

neonic chemicals degrade in two ways hydrolysis (takes up to 3 years per half life) and also via photolysis (half live of 4 hours to a handful of weeks). I was advocating for beeks to harness the power of the sun (not the water) to reduce the concentration of neonics in their hive wax or in the wax coating new plastic frames. My point here is that it's within the grasp of most or all hive keepers to do this themselves if they feel they are concerned about the levels of neonic pesticides in their hive.

When we are talking about new frames, the coating is very tiny so I wouldn't see it being an penatration issue for sunlight. With the solar melter as long as you melt all the wax, I don't see UV penatration being an issue here either.

If you are wanting to photodegrade chemicals, you are correct. I wouldn't recommend using a low-e glass. I've got plenty of evidence in my house that regular glass emits UV rays (faded curtains, furnature, etc). Plastic does work beter than glass in transmitting the full spectrum of UV light. Again, it's nothing that prevents beeks from taking steps on their own here.

http://www.efficientwindows.org/fading.cfm - link on UV transmission of glass

It is an interesting idea. Couple of things:
You were talked about "hydrolysis".

Solar melter probably would not work for the reasons explained above - no water inside the body of wax and possible no UV if ordinary glass used. Remember that you need both - water and UV in the same place at the same time and chemical needs to be here as well.

[Solomon Parker]

Aha, but if you leave plastic frames in the sun, they may warp. [Hornet's nest kicking smilie]