Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
April 23, 2014, 10:01:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat(2)  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: You won't convince me....  (Read 4567 times)
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« on: November 15, 2008, 04:29:32 PM »

So let me perhaps not convince you either. But let me mention some points for others to ponder.

Have a kid? I have three. If you don't have a kid, maybe you can volunteer yourself. You see, I'm looking for a few volunteers to allow me to test a known carcinogenic material. It does not involve much. I need clean subjects and the younger the better!

Here is the product information as per the manufacturers label...

"Caution! FLAMMABLE. Contains petroleum distillates and xylene. Fluorescents contain alcohols. CONTENTS AND FUMES MAY CATCH FIRE. Keep from heat and open flame. Use under well ventilated conditions. KEEP FROM SMALL CHILDREN. Conforms to ASTM D-4236  For emergency health information call  1-800-222-1222 WARNING: This product contains  a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

What I want to do is this....paint a few people with a big circle on their backs with a product described above. You get to walk around with this paint spot on for the rest of your life. The test will be to see if any harmful side effects will come to you. Disregard any previous claims. Afterall, people use this product all the time anyways, without a second thought. But we are wanting to ramp up the amounts to well over anything previously tested.

Interested?

By now, and for those who have heard me talk about such stuff before, you probably have guessed I'm talking about the standard issue paint pen used on queens, and sold at many of the supply companies.

Keep in mind.....

No, previous testing of painted queen has even been accomplished.

No product has even been manufactured for the sole use of marking queens.

Testing of some chemicals since CCD has hit, has shown that 4 parts per billion for some chemicals, can cause entire hives to crash.

If you paint the equal amount of your back, as compared to the queen as she is marked, I would think about a 1 foot round paint patch would be sufficient. Do you think this would be a good thing? Anyone willing to give it a try?

The bee industry as far as I am aware, has never produced a safe PROVEN product for marking queens. The industry has always been more than willing to grab anything off the shelf, and slap a queens back in marking her, and suggests that "it never hurt in the past!" But how is one to know?

The above warning is right off the packaging of the pen sold to me this past week. Yes, I keep one around for those who absolutely want this service. But I also mention that the smell given off from painting the queen could be reason from anything from supercedure to balling. And it certainly is not natural, organic, or healthy in my opinion.

I had one situation where a beekeeper marked queens, placed the queens back into the nucs, and then drove a hundred miles with some, as I can only assume, very ticked off bees. The phone call a couple days later about the queens being balled and supercedure cells really makes me wonder. I now strongly discourage others from this procedure.

So why does the industry assume that paint off any shelf is good for bees? We know that some chemicals can cause bees to die at 4 parts per billion. But yet so many are willing to paint the back of the very lifeline of the hive, the queen, with a foreign, and highly toxic material.

My own state of Pennsylvania is now considering "Good Beekeeping Practices" which outlines procedures to take once AHB are a potential problem. And I actually think marked queens is a great thing, since knowing if your queen has been insurpted/superceded is a good thing. But as it is now, for the state, or industry, to DEMAND queen marking, when no testing has been presented, is foolish. It's something that beekeepers should be talking about. It's something that should be researched.

You will never convince me that slapping a paint spot (or glue with a numbered disk) on the back of a queen is healthy.

Ok...who wants that first paint spot on their back....  grin

Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
bassman1977
"King Bee"
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1787

Location: Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania


« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2008, 05:16:56 PM »

Hard to argue what you wrote.  I don't get my queens marked because it's a blown buck or two since that queen is typically replaced within the year.  I don't get my queens' wings clipped because, well, it's a blown buck or two, doesn't prevent swarming, might even result in the queen being replaced since she is now "damaged".

I agree what you wrote needs to be talked about more.  That's something that hasn't even crossed my mind.  I wonder how many others thought of it.  I've heard of people painting their queen with modeling paint.  That's some potent stuff right there.

 Do I want a paint spot on my back.  No thanks.   afro
Logged

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(''')_(''')
WayneW
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 80


Location: Luzerne County, PA


« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2008, 08:41:08 PM »

I'll only agree if ya promise to administer oxalic acid armoa theropy and give me a nice cold glass of iced thymol tea while your painting  fishhit
Logged

A beekeeper is not what i am, it's what i aspire to become.
1of6
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


Location: Pennsylvania

Always learning...


« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2008, 10:31:42 PM »

Bjorn,
No thanks. 

Interesting point.

Lee Miller and MaryAnn Frazier spoke at our fall banquet tonight.  Sure would be interesting to have you down our way to speak.
Logged
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6349


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2008, 07:05:15 AM »

WARNING: This product contains  a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

What doesn't cause cancer in California?

How about nail polish?  Many women use it all their life tongue
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2008, 08:09:26 AM »

WARNING: This product contains  a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

What doesn't cause cancer in California?

How about nail polish?  Many women use it all their life tongue

Funny you mention nails for women. Up on the subject are you? Perhaps a simple google search for those that are not would enlighten them to many dirty little secrets in the nail industry. Just Google something like "Nail salon Medical problems" or "Nail salon Chemical problems", "Fake nail or nail polish medical problems", or anything else about having nails done. It would make anyone who uses nail polish, fake nails, or anything else related to having pretty nails, a little hesitant about the crap that is Legally being used in the industry. Fungus, bacterial and chemical poisoning is rampant in the industry of "pretty nails".

Although I'm not really into the whole "lets side-step" one issue due to another issue being wrong also.  grin

I'm asking you or anyone else, how do you KNOW slapping a paint spot on a queen is healthy or good? If you want to talk about a different parallel scenario, how about keeping it in the beekeeping industry? Lets talk about checkmite. Ten years ago, it was  standard treatment. But we now know the chemical in Checkmite will effect queen virility, longevity, size, and quality. And if you asked ten years ago, most (even researchers) about ANY chemical being lethal to bees at a 4 part per billion, I think they would of said it could not happen. But here we are today, knowing different.

Sounds to me that you would trust the product enough to have your back, or the back of a loved one, painted with a big old enamel spot, for the rest of their lives. I'll mark you down as the first willing Guinea pig.   grin

For me, I'll withhold having my nails painted or, my back. And it will be the same for the bees. I try to keep natural, chemical free bees. I think most also want that. But they do not think about the paint spot on the queens back. And nobody to this date has studied, researched, or proven that it does not harm queens. But hey....that was the same ten years ago for checkmite......  Wink
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6349


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2008, 08:23:51 AM »

If you want to talk about a different parallel scenario, how about keeping it in the beekeeping industry?

I only bought up nail polish because some recommend it for marking queens.     I do have other parallels with humans and paint, but because it is not "beekeeping related" industries, I guess I will move on form this discussion.   I don't think you will find any related scenarios in the beekeeping industry, but I wish you luck....
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


1of6
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


Location: Pennsylvania

Always learning...


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2008, 09:23:47 AM »

Gentlemen, your 'difference' brings up an interesting thought.  Perhaps if you thought of this in terms of absorbtion...

Skin, the hardened back/thorax of a bee, and let's say even the shell of a turtle - they should all yeild different absorbtion rates, should they not?  Perhaps if you focus your comparision in that direction...
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2008, 10:03:10 AM »

If you want to talk about a different parallel scenario, how about keeping it in the beekeeping industry?

I only bought up nail polish because some recommend it for marking queens.     I do have other parallels with humans and paint, but because it is not "beekeeping related" industries, I guess I will move on form this discussion.   I don't think you will find any related scenarios in the beekeeping industry, but I wish you luck....

Rob, I understand your point. And please know that I realize that I do get passionate and very focused on a topic sometimes. It's not in an attempt to be overbearing, or somehow prove this or that point, although it may come across strong.

My point about discrediting nail polish, is for the fact that there are many problems in the nail industry. With many products being approved but yet having effects on people. And for anyone to think because we humans use it, that it's ok for bees, is a bit IMO presumptuous. My point was that EVEN for products WITHIN the industry of beekeeping, that we somehow constantly think is safe, we then find out later that it may very well be best not to of used the product to begin with. And these products were supposed to be safe and tested. And if those products are questionable at best, I think we should not expect any better for products developed for other uses, such as nail polish that comes with its own problems even though assumed safe, and apply that same criteria to bees. I bet we as humans can handle 4 parts per billion of many different pesticides, yet bees can not as shown in studies. To suggest that because one thing is safe for humans and apply that same reasoning to bees without testing, is in my opinion wrong. This also makes the whole idea of comparing absorption rates between skin, turtle shells, bees exoskeleton, or anything else, a moot point. We will not know without testing.

Testors paint has been approved for non consumption in humans. Many states require a certain labeling warnings based on nobody actually eating, or even coming in contact with the paint. It's not made for applying to your skin. California (although I agree is NUTS! about such stuff) goes beyond such labeling and many times include items pointing out that stuff is carcinogenic, as if someone is actually eating it. (I wonder how many huff this stuff because of the warning..  rolleyes ) So although California does go overboard on such labeling, I would also heed such warnings just the same. Most states assume that internal or external application (to the skin) will not happen for a product such as modeling paint. California just takes it a step further and warns those that may eat it or apply it to one's skin, what those dangers are. And I would think that would apply to bees.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6349


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2008, 11:04:29 AM »

And for anyone to think because we humans use it, that it's ok for bees, is a bit IMO presumptuous.  To suggest that because one thing is safe for humans and apply that same reasoning to bees without testing, is in my opinion wrong.
Isn't that exactly what your proposing with "your study"Huh

I think most of the "dangerous" stuff of paint is in the thinners and volatilizes off rather quickly (relatively speaking) and whether one has it on them 2weeks, 2months, 2years, etc.... Is a moot point.

I know I'm not gonna convince you otherwise, nor am I going to try.   But personally,  I would be more concerned with the possibility of the corn syrup your feeding them being contaminated with neonicotinoids than the short term exposure to paint volatiles from marking a queen.   Just use the water based markers if that makes you more comfortable.
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


Cindi
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9827

Location: Grindrod, B.C. Canada


« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2008, 11:16:30 AM »

I do wonder how impervious the exoskeleton of the bee would be to any kind of marking solution -- that would be a very interesting study for surely.  I would think it has already been performed somewhere, someone else must surely have questioned if it affects queen health.  Personally, I still think queen marking is a good idea.  Just a little dab will do ya.......  I only got around to marking one queen last year, I'll let you know how long she lives.  Have a wonderful and awesome day, great life, great health.  Cindi
Logged

There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold.  The Arctic trails have their secret tales that would make your blood run cold.  The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see, what the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee.  Robert Service
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2008, 11:37:26 AM »

Robo,
As for the "your study" comment....only if you are actually taking it serious and are willing to take part. I think my study was to make a point, and was not reasoned to be an actual study.

I do thank you for stating "I think" as part of your explanation. "I think" is not clear, not exact, and far from knowing.

It's not about what I use. I don't mark my queens. It's about informing the beekeeping public, with actual facts, and some food for thought thrown in for them to consider what they are or are not doing, buying, and subjecting their queens too. The many hobbiests on forums such as this, who order queens from any number of places that do use these same pens that are listed with such cautions for human contact and consumption, should be informed of potential effects to their queens. Unless your a breeder or a few of those that mark their own queens, I would "think" that 99% of the beekeeping public has not a clue what they are getting when asking for a queen to be slapped with a dab of paint.

For years, the beekeeping industry has complained about poor queens, queens that supercede, queens that give out prematurely, and nobody had a clue. Many say that queens over the past 10 or so years are far less than what they once bought. We now know about something that was there all along, with nobody even thinking about it. When the first questions arose about such chemicals as Checkmite, many denied any possible problems. Here we are years later, and things have changed. What will we find out in the next ten years?

Of course one can use water based products. And they are many times eaten or removed by the bees rather quickly. That's why many use the enamel pens or nail polish. Both, never tested or approved safe to bees. It's a shame that we as an industry do not have a product marked "Tested safe for bees!". But many of these products are tested and "unsafe" for human contact or consumption, which should at least raise a flag as we slap a spot on that next queen.

I'm not suggesting anything wrong with marking queens, as if it's some barbaric tactic. I think it's useful. But I'm just raising these points because what we as the beekeeping industry has been handed thus far as a safe product and sold by many supply companies, has not been approved or tested.

Of course you can convince me. Just provide the proof needed to make a claim that it has been approved safe with no harmful side effects. In todays world, that is the norm. It's not about assuming its safe for bees, when we also know it's NOT safe for humans in the same application. That's a huge leap of faith.

Whether I'm right or your right, this discussion at least allows many beekeepers to know exactly what is on the package of the paint pen that so many use in marking their queens. Having that knowledge in the hands of the public is best for everybody.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2008, 12:56:56 PM »

I do wonder how impervious the exoskeleton of the bee would be to any kind of marking solution -- that would be a very interesting study for surely.  I would think it has already been performed somewhere, someone else must surely have questioned if it affects queen health.  Personally, I still think queen marking is a good idea.  Just a little dab will do ya.......  I only got around to marking one queen last year, I'll let you know how long she lives.  Have a wonderful and awesome day, great life, great health.  Cindi

Cindi,

Thank you.

You could also take it one step further. Many big operations keep track of their queens with numbers. Want to guess what the "cement" used within the industry is? Just your everyday modeling cement that so many use for cars, planes and other models. And if anyone wants a challenge.....I'll challenge anyone to smear a bunch of that on the inside of your arm and let it stay there a day or two. You'll find out, it's not real pleasant. And the label warning for that stuff makes the paint look harmless. But, this is just another "off the shelf" product that many use on the backs of queens that they use for breeding your queens. I do wonder about the offspring of such potentially damaged queens.



Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
annette
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 5286


Location: Placerville, California


« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2008, 01:38:22 PM »

Well

You certainly got me thinking about this marking business. When I purchase my queens they are always marked,but if I have a choice next time, I will request unmarked.

Thanks for the info
annette
Logged
johnnybigfish
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2038


Location: Wichita Falls Tx


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2008, 02:11:07 PM »

Personally, I would NEVER mark my queens with anything!



But,....Thats only because I can never find one to mark! grin
 But, I do find this marking question something to think about. I mean, maybe the ingredients do put poison into the queen...and, maybe, this is transfered to the eggs which make the new babies. And maybe the bees do grow retarded in some way..Kinda like when humans used to pass down Thalidomide from the mother to the baby.


Well,....thats all.

your friend,
john
Logged

rdy-b
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2210


Location: clayton ca


« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2008, 04:20:18 PM »


 cheesy RDY-B


Logged
Doby45
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67

Location: Powder Springs, GA


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2008, 05:26:40 PM »

LOL, the funny thing about this discussion is that it is closing in on the ranks of almost being a PETA discussion.  If that is the case, prior to making assumptions and speculating what the adverse effects would be of paint on a queen, what about people that kill off their queens intentionally simply for the purpose of increased production.  Many a discussions on here about crushing the head of a queen. 

For the record I am a newb beek and will have each of my queens marked or mark them myself.
Logged
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6349


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2008, 05:55:21 PM »

It's about informing the beekeeping public, with actual facts, and some food for thought thrown in for them to consider what they are or are not doing, buying, and subjecting their queens too. The many hobbiests on forums such as this, who order queens from any number of places that do use these same pens that are listed with such cautions for human contact and consumption, should be informed of potential effects to their queens. Unless your a breeder or a few of those that mark their own queens, I would "think" that 99% of the beekeeping public has not a clue what they are getting when asking for a queen to be slapped with a dab of paint.
I appreciate your concern for the hobbyists understanding.  Do you think they should be informed that the US supply of corn syrup is contaminated with neonicotinoids, a pesticide, before they are advised to use fondant too?  


I'll continue to mark my queens and reap the benefits from it.  I've never had such good queens since I have started raising my own from acclimatized stock.  In fact, I think they are better than the unmarked queens I purchased thru the 70's & 80's  before using chemicals became the norm.

I'm all for more natural beekeeping and less chemicals,  but it seems like a lot of hobbyist base their decisions on convenience.

Not to go off on a tangent,  but what does it take to prove something is safe for bees? I don't think it is possible to prove something completely safe,  you just assume it is safe because no known issues can be found.  Seems like every year there is at least one new pollen substitute on the market.  What is done to prove these safe?  Seems like people are just pumping this stuff into their hives as well without question.  

Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2008, 06:49:41 PM »

It's about informing the beekeeping public, with actual facts, and some food for thought thrown in for them to consider what they are or are not doing, buying, and subjecting their queens too. The many hobbiests on forums such as this, who order queens from any number of places that do use these same pens that are listed with such cautions for human contact and consumption, should be informed of potential effects to their queens. Unless your a breeder or a few of those that mark their own queens, I would "think" that 99% of the beekeeping public has not a clue what they are getting when asking for a queen to be slapped with a dab of paint.
I appreciate your concern for the hobbyists understanding.  Do you think they should be informed that the US supply of corn syrup is contaminated with neonicotinoids, a pesticide, before they are advised to use fondant too?  


I'll continue to mark my queens and reap the benefits from it.  I've never had such good queens since I have started raising my own from acclimatized stock.  In fact, I think they are better than the unmarked queens I purchased thru the 70's & 80's  before using chemicals became the norm.

I'm all for more natural beekeeping and less chemicals,  but it seems like a lot of hobbyist base their decisions on convenience.

Not to go off on a tangent,  but what does it take to prove something is safe for bees? I don't think it is possible to prove something completely safe,  you just assume it is safe because no known issues can be found.  Seems like every year there is at least one new pollen substitute on the market.  What is done to prove these safe?  Seems like people are just pumping this stuff into their hives as well without question.  



Yes, I do. That information is available for all beekeepers to consider. But just like the fondation, or any other beekeeping item, one must look and seek the information. Although fondation does not come with a warning, and neither does HFCS, marked queens do not either. Are you suggesting that one having something is justification for not discussing the other?

As for the neonicotinoids, tests have shown that the one's that so many of the bandwagon crowd thought was killing bees turned up in about 20 to 30% of CCD samples. You can take that information for what its worth. The best part, is that people are looking into it, testing, and seeking perhaps a better way of beekeeping. I would encourage the same with HFCS. And although they did test samples of bulk (and some would say a cheap product) HFCS, it can hardly be broadly stroked across the entire spectrum of every product made with Corn Syrup. But it is worth looking into. I can not foresee every sugar product as to chemical levels. But I can clearly read the warning label on the paint they sell to beekeepers.

But what has me perplexed is the outright denial or negative viewpoint that even discussing or considering the impact of chemicals even when the labeling is as direct as it is, for enamel paint and hobby cement. And although they are testing HFCS and such items as fondation, why would it not be a good thing for the industry to look at marked queens?

I agree with the pollen supplement. And anyone who knows me also knows I have been ranting on that crap for a few years now. I gave many talks on the matter. Lack of nutritional values on the package, supplement boosted with 60% sugar to allow bee to consume it, nutrition values far less than DeGroot listed 55 years ago detailing what bees need for proper nutrition. It's been a sham and a dirty secret for years. I took part in discussions this past year when MannLake came out and finally acknowledged that they were passing pollen from China. I applauded them for stopping this and seeking a domestic "and tested" source from the states. And I also have a FDA recalled 25 pound bag of pollen in my fridge from another supplier that was passing off pollen from China while not disclosing it. (It will be tested)

I'm all for a beekeeper doing what they want. I also feel that the buying beekeeping public should be aware of the secrets in pollen supplement as well as the warning and any potential harm from such items as queen paint and glue. As I said, I bet 99% of those ordering marked queens never even thought about the warning label and the potential harm. And for those wanting to keep chems out of the hives, this may be something for them to consider. As for my own acclimatized stock, I also think I have a good stock. And when I say I do not use chemicals in the hive, that is exactly correct, and not stated with a gray area in between. I do not have the means to test and check every bag of sugar and every other item I put in my hive. But I do have the ability to read the label and take action as to keeping beekeeper induced chemicals out of my hives, including paint directly applied to the backs of queens.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Sean Kelly
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 903


Location: Buckley, Wa

I Pick; Therefore I Grin


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2008, 07:23:17 AM »

My queens are livestock to me.  They are producing a harvest and are replaceable.  They are not pets or people so why should I worry how they feel?  They are just an insect that I'm gunna pinch the heads off of in a year or two anyway.  People have been marking queens in the same way for ages and it's never cause a CCD epidemic before.

I personally do not mark or clip my queens.  To me it's just a waste of a couple bucks.  I don't think my local supplier even provides marked/clipped queens as an option.  Now that my apiary is growing, I have thought to start marking my queens so I can keep better track of their age and whether they've been replaced or swarmed.  And if I do go this route, I will always go with the time tested and proved method.

Sean Kelly
Logged

"My son,  eat  thou honey,  because it is good;  and the honeycomb,  which is sweet  to thy taste"          - Proverbs 24:13
pdmattox
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1117


Location: lake city, florida


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2008, 09:09:45 AM »

"Re: You won't convince me...." And they still try.. fishhit

P.S. I am with you sean.
Logged

NWIN Beekeeper
Professional Beekeeper
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 338


Location: Crown Point, Indiana (30mi SE of Chicago)


« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2008, 09:51:34 AM »

Re: You won't convince me...." And they still try..

[can I finish that sentence? ]

incite a riot.

Bjorn cites a lot of viotile chemicals but they are the elements that evaporate as the paint dries.
IF one could prove that the paint continues to off-gas, then I might reconsider my stance.
Its my opinion that the paint dries and is as inert as anyother surface that the queen walks on.

-Jeff


Logged

There is nothing new under the sun. Only your perspective changes to see it anew.
Cindi
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9827

Location: Grindrod, B.C. Canada


« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2008, 09:54:13 AM »

My question has not been answered.  Has there been any studies done on the strength of the exoskeleton of a queen bee, to see if any of these chemicals are absorbed through this protective layer, does anyone know?  Just curiosity, and that never got this cat.  Beautiful and most wonderful day and life, great health.  Cindi
Logged

There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold.  The Arctic trails have their secret tales that would make your blood run cold.  The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see, what the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee.  Robert Service
1of6
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


Location: Pennsylvania

Always learning...


« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2008, 12:17:43 PM »

Gentlemen,...Skin, the hardened back/thorax of a bee, and let's say even the shell of a turtle - they should all yeild different absorbtion rates, should they not?...

My question has not been answered.  Has there been any studies done on the strength of the exoskeleton of a queen bee, to see if any of these chemicals are absorbed through this protective layer, does anyone know?  Just curiosity, and that never got this cat.  Beautiful and most wonderful day and life, great health.  Cindi

Actually, I think rate of absorption would be one of the most relevant things to look at if there is a comparison or a case to be made.  It's one of the most important things that would form the basis for this 'study'.  It's what ensures that you're not comparing apples to oranges...
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2008, 02:18:20 PM »

Not sure if anyone is reading into my previous comments about it being a moot point in the differences between absorption rates. But let me add to this so, I can clarify what I was commenting.

Knowing the absorption rates between a bee, human skin, and a turtle, only lets you set the  level for these individual items being tested. You can not make assumptions on how a turtle shell obsorbs something and then some how relate that to a bee. The same for the effects or ability to maintain a level within the items tested, as each tested item may have unique qualities effecting the levels retained or lost.

What I'm saying is, if you want to know the absorption rate of a bee, you test the bee. Not the turtle or human. You want to test the bee for how a chemical reacts, effects, changes, or impacts egg production or overall health for a bee, you test the bee. Not a turtle. A turtle may very well be able to flush out chemicals that a bee can not. Or vice-versa. I can not speak for a turtle, but I know humans can withstand much more than a bee can handle, and we even have the ability for chemicals to be flushed from our systems, depending what they are. We do not die at 4 parts per billions, but bees have been proven to do so with some chemicals. The bees are much more sensitive to chemicals in the environment than we are.

I think a test along the lines of painting 20 queens, and having 20 queens not painted, all from the same graft, and from the same apiary, tested at some interval such as 6 months or a year. You can monitor supercedure rates, egg production, and anything else you would want to test. After the year, you do a chemical analysis to see how much of the known chemicals in the paint are still in the queens after the paint spot has been removed. You could also test the offspring if any chemicals are being passed along in eggs, etc.

We may find nothing, or we may find something. But with all the problems in the industry, I find it ironic that no testing that I know of has ever occurred. And the stuff we pull off the shelf of the hobby store shelf to paint queens with are questionable in my mind.

And if you think the stuff is completely harmless after the fumes burn off, then I dare you to paint one underarm with a enamel paint, and the other arm with hobby cement. Let it dry if you think its best. Then post a picture of both underarms each day. You can not wash it, you can not clean it. The paint and cement must remain for 30 days. If it flakes off, more would be applied.  Best part, is that if you do not make it for the 30 days, you lose nothing. I only ask for your honest participation. I think it will be interesting to see how long one can handle it once the irritation and rash starts. (irritation and rash would likely suggest far less than an inert substance) Anyone interested? I may be willing to pay a hundred dollars for the right experiment and participation. Not that proving me wrong would not be worth it already...  shocked (that's a double dare   grin  ) And you may get your picture in an article in one of the bee mags as a bonus. You can PM if you wish. I thought about one of the kids taking part but my wife said I'm nuts and does not think it's as safe as others suggest this stuff is. She's smart like that.   rolleyes

Someone can be part of a beekeeping experiment that would be long remembered. Come on....have some fun.

Cindi....don't hold your breathe..... grin
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Bee-Bop
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 689


Location: Southern Missouri


« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2008, 03:07:17 PM »

Glue on the arm:
Can't really comment about it being on the arm, however my wife is highly alergic to medical tape. She had 2 disks in her neck replaced, Guess What, they used Super Glue ! The incision about 1 & 1/2 in long was covered with Super Glue about 3/4 in wide. after about 6 weeks it began to peel off, Very, very minor visible scar.

Think that would cover your arm test ?

Oh I understand this is not a uncommon procedure, per the doctor.

Bee-Bop
Logged

" If Your not part of the genetic solution of breeding mite-free bees, then You're part of the problem "
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2008, 03:15:57 PM »

Bee-Bop,
They have all kinds of glue on the market for surgical and topical application in the medical field. So although I'm not doubting super glue was used, I also wonder why an approved glue that is readily available was not used. 

(Your not suggesting they used superglue off the store shelf are you?)

I know I have had discussions with others about "glue" used in the medical field, and some has called or referred to it as super-glue. But it was the medical approved type glue that was just being mentioned. They actually have a neat product called "liquid Band-aid" for topical application. And I know when my son hit his head on the coffee table, they glued the deep cut shut. Amazing stuff they now have on the market. At least in my son's case, they called it super glue, but it was clearly the stuff designed and produced for such medical procedures.


No substitution for the arm test would be adequate. I think that the stuff sold in the bee mags and the stuff used as the industry norm would be what we would need to test.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
charlotte
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 140


Location: WI


« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2008, 04:45:41 PM »

I don't mark my queens, I too am concerned about the paint.  I have gone to ear tags.  fishhit
Logged

Sleep is overrated!
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6349


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2008, 07:31:36 PM »

I've come to my senses as well and will never mark another bee again.   


I have decided to go with RFID tags instead.



Although there has never been a study to see the affect of propolis on the health of bees,  I have decided to use it to secure the RFID tags.  I know there is no correlation between humans and bees when it comes to what and what doesn't cause health issues, but I have had propolis on my skin for extended periods of time with no adverse reaction,  so at least I feel good about it tongue
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2008, 07:41:56 PM »

 Robo,
grin

I think there was some article, not sure if it was just humor or not, but I read about bar-coding bees.

I personally just name all mine. The queens were easy, the workers are the diffucult ones. And those name tags can be hard to pin on....  shocked
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Cindi
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9827

Location: Grindrod, B.C. Canada


« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2008, 09:17:11 PM »

Well, well, well....that was a great and interesting thread.  AND...I'm gonna hold my breath, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!!! shocked Smiley Smiley Smiley  Have the most wonderful and awesome of days, great health, Cindi
Logged

There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold.  The Arctic trails have their secret tales that would make your blood run cold.  The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see, what the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee.  Robert Service
CTbeeman
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 28


Location: Stratford, Connecticut


« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2008, 09:43:13 PM »

Nevermind paint on my back for the rest of my life. I prefer to sit for 21 days in a small unventilated room with formic acid pads to breath in. Twice a year. grin  evil
Logged

If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it.
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2008, 09:50:10 PM »

Well, you haven't convinced me.  Although I don't use paint anyway cuz' I'm just too lazy to bother.  But I'd agree it does get more important with breeding queens and tracking age.

I'm not saying that the stuff in the paint isn't bad.  But really, is a carcinogen a problem in a creature that lives only 1 or 2 years?  

As far as off-gassing goes, most of that is done by the time the paint is dry.  C'mon...don't tell me you've never sniffed paint!!  Probably more in proportion to your size than a queen gets.  I have, and I'm pretty sure that JohnnyBigFish (can mead be carcinogenic??)  and a few others here have done a bit of that  tongue, and we're still around and kicking!! grin  Really, wat damag can a litl bit od paint dooo?

Go ahead and do the testing, it would be interesting to see, but I think more damage is done from the misapplication of the paint to the queen than the paint itself.

Rick
Logged

Rick
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5224


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2008, 11:21:04 PM »

But wouldn't it be interesting to know if a lineage of painted queens were superceded more often,or if the offspring mortality increased because of progressive generations of marked queens? It could be a small part of the cumulative effects on colony health. Or it could be nothing at all.
  The point is well taken that we do not know if there is zero or a negative effect.Do we really know for sure how long unmarked and unclipped queens last in the wild? Probably not,but with marked queens we do know how old she is.
 It would be an interesting study indeed. Maybe worthy of some bailout money for the bee industry!! Wink
Logged
durkie
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 20

Location: Atlanta


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2008, 11:06:52 AM »

Not that I'm trying to convince you, but...

The carcinogen there is the xylene, which acts as a carrier for the fluorescent ink. Solvents like xylene are used for markers and such because they are volatile, so they evaporate away and leave the dry ink behind.

Why do you think a chemical like that, which a natural tendency to basically go away, would have anything more than a fleeting effect on bees, especially if the queen wasn't introduced until after the ink spot had dried?

I'm not trying to discourage you...the most interesting results definitely come from challenging previous knowledge, but just curious about your line of thought there.
Logged
bhough
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 39

Location: Tampa, FL (recently moved from Pittsburgh, PA)


« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2008, 01:18:12 PM »

Bought a nuc from Bjorn bee spring 2007.  Simply beautiful.  Mike is a class act.  They did so well I split them this spring and both are growing like crazy.  I don't know as much as he does about chemicals and such, but if you can judge by his product, he knows what he is doing.

Hope you are doing well Bjornbee!
b
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2008, 03:56:29 PM »

Not that I'm trying to convince you, but...

The carcinogen there is the xylene, which acts as a carrier for the fluorescent ink. Solvents like xylene are used for markers and such because they are volatile, so they evaporate away and leave the dry ink behind.

Why do you think a chemical like that, which a natural tendency to basically go away, would have anything more than a fleeting effect on bees, especially if the queen wasn't introduced until after the ink spot had dried?

I'm not trying to discourage you...the most interesting results definitely come from challenging previous knowledge, but just curious about your line of thought there.

Update.....

Not sure xylene is the carcinogenic item. From the MSDS I just received from the company, they also have Ethel benzene listed, as "an IARC Group 2B - Possible Carcinogen"

The items listed for just the Hazardous ingredients are:
VM&P Naphtha
Ethyl Benzene
Xylol (xylene)
High Boiling Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Anti flooding agent
Diarylide Yellow pigment
Copper Phthalocyanine Pigment

But wait it gets better.....

Primary routes of Entry for health hazard concerns.......Inhalation and SKIN CONTACT! Imagine that, they list skin contact as a primary route for health effects.

Under emergency procedures, under "skin contact", it states ...If irritation persists, get medical attention". Now how can skin contact problems exist if once it's dried, it is harmless as some suggest? Hmmm.

Under "special protection Information", it calls and states "avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of vapors, mists and/or dust". Hmmmm....does not sound like the inert material suggested after the fumes burn off, if they are concerned about "dust". Bees cleaning and chewing on those paint spots....another Hmmmm.

I'm not typing out the whole MSDS. But it covers dangers to prolonged contact with the paint (even dried), animal testing with liver, lung and kidney damage, internal hemorrhage if ingested, and so on.

The discussion I had with the company involved if any testing was ever conducted for bees or insects. Answer..No! They said the paint is produced for non-contact painting, and they do not reccomend applying it to human, insect, or animal. They acknowledged they know beekeepers do use their product, but also have nice liability statements about using the product for what it is designed and produced for. And they will not openly state that is should be used on bees.

Again, I'm not trying to undermine marking queens. I'm just suggesting that the beekeeping industry should look at all aspects of hive health. And I find it amazing that this is the best product produced and manufactured for painting queens. Only when the industry DEMANDS change, will that come about. And I acknowledge it may never happen. I just wish we had more to go on than pulling products off a shelf.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2008, 03:58:21 PM »

Bought a nuc from Bjorn bee spring 2007.  Simply beautiful.  Mike is a class act.  They did so well I split them this spring and both are growing like crazy.  I don't know as much as he does about chemicals and such, but if you can judge by his product, he knows what he is doing.

Hope you are doing well Bjornbee!
b

Thank you. Glad to hear all is well.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
troutstalker2
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 212


Location: Hickory, North Carolina


« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2008, 11:08:57 AM »

 Queen bees don't hire attorneys, if they did you would see all kinds of warnings.
Logged
Brandy
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15

Location: Colorado


« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2008, 11:01:07 AM »

Bjorn,
So, I'm looking at my bottles of Testors acrylic paints that say Non Toxic, Water Wash up.  But I also see that they include glycol ethers.  They seem to think this isn't good for your eyes, but no mention of skin hazards etc...  Is it your thought's that there is nothing on the market that would be safe for marking queens???
I have to admit I thought these were safe, and I find it extremely helpful being able to differentiate queens by their colored markings. 

Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2008, 01:47:26 PM »

Bjorn,
So, I'm looking at my bottles of Testors acrylic paints that say Non Toxic, Water Wash up.  But I also see that they include glycol ethers.  They seem to think this isn't good for your eyes, but no mention of skin hazards etc...  Is it your thought's that there is nothing on the market that would be safe for marking queens???
I have to admit I thought these were safe, and I find it extremely helpful being able to differentiate queens by their colored markings. 


Hello Brandy. Hope all is well...  Wink

I'm not making claims one way or the other. What I do know, is that I have never seen testing done to guarantee anyone that the stuff on the market is safe.

I'll use my uni-POSCA pen as example from last year. It is a water-based opaque paint. Says safe for children. But what is the standard and what level is considered safe for children. Whatever that may be, If anything like many chemicals, there are levels allowed in foods and products for human use, while carrying a "safe" label. Some of the foods we consume have acceptable chemical and pesticide levels, that could very well be detrimental to bees. Just because it is safe for one thing, does not ensure the same for bees, especially when bees have such low tolerances, well below what we can handle.

I'll certainly view my Posca pen more safer than the testors paint pen I just received. But I also need to keep in mind many labels are centered around safety precautions from the viewpoint of what the product was designed for. Once a product is used outside the intended purpose, it opens up all kinds of potential, since testing was NOT completed for additional usage. Nontoxic for a tested use, can not be assumed for another use. And we know 4 parts per billion of some chemicals are approved and stamped safe for humans, but are deadly for bees.

I am just mentioning this, due to the casual use of many products out there. Everything from those labeled as a danger, to nail polish to hobby cement. I can not state everything is bad. But to this date, no testing of any company I have researched has given an approval of marking animals or insects, and have not completed any testing to date. They make it clear that the product is not approved for use on bees, never tested, and should not be considered safe for such. So far, that includes a paint pen, nail polish, and a glue company.

Hey, I love marked queen also. Makes my job much easier. I just wish as an industry, we can demand or expect a proven, tested, and safe product for our bees. Thus far, not one company has stepped forward and made such a claim. I certainly view some paint options on the market as "safer" than others. But I'd also be just as willing not to use anything that has not been tested and approved for bees.

Maybe as group, something good can come about. If anything, I hope it opens some eyes as to at least looking at the label, and for others perhaps it will bring a viewpoint they never considered. I have met many people who just considered everything safe unless they were smacked in the face. But when they find out that nothing has even been tested or approved, they look at things differently.

Take Care.
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.189 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page April 13, 2014, 11:51:50 AM