You won't convince me....

[BjornBee]

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....  :-D

[bassman1977]

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.   :mrgreen:

[WayneW]

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:

[1of6]

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.

[Robo]

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 :-P

[BjornBee]

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 :-P

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.  :-D

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.   :-D

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......  ;)

[Robo]

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....

[1of6]

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...

[BjornBee]

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..  :roll: ) 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.

[Robo]

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"???

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.

[Cindi]

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

[BjornBee]

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.

[BjornBee]

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.

[annette]

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

[johnnybigfish]

Personally, I would NEVER mark my queens with anything!



But,....Thats only because I can never find one to mark! :-D
 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

[rdy-b]

 :lol: RDY-B

[Doby45]

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.

[Robo]

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.  

[BjornBee]

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.

[Sean Kelly]

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