PMMA Combs

From Ji
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Risks)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
==Risks==
 
==Risks==
  
Too little knowledge is currently available on which influence polyméthapolymethyl methacrylate might have on bees and bees: It is known that polymethyl methacrylate dust and vapours are irritating for human and other mammals' mucous membranes<ref name="EPA, 1998">EPA, 1998: Toxicological review of methyl methacrylate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/toxreviews/1000-tr.pdf</ref>, but, apparently, no toxicity studies neither on PMMA nor on the additives used to enhance its stability, has been performed on insects up to now. Even if the product is reputed as of low-toxicity and very stable, there still some degree of uncertainty. The acceptance of plastic is generally low by organic beekeepers.  
+
Too little knowledge is currently available on which influence polyméthapolymethyl methacrylate might have on bees and honey: It is known that polymethyl methacrylate dust and vapours are irritating for human and other mammals' mucous membranes<ref name="EPA, 1998">EPA, 1998: Toxicological review of methyl methacrylate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/toxreviews/1000-tr.pdf</ref>, but, apparently, no toxicity studies neither on PMMA nor on the additives used to enhance its stability, has been performed on insects and on their behaviour in contact with honey in up to now. Even if the product is reputed as of low-toxicity and very stable, there still some degree of uncertainty. The acceptance of plastic is generally low by organic beekeepers.  
  
 
A too rich feeding of the larvae may result in physiological modifications in workers, as, e.g. enlarged ovaries, which may lead the workers to behave similarly to a queen.
 
A too rich feeding of the larvae may result in physiological modifications in workers, as, e.g. enlarged ovaries, which may lead the workers to behave similarly to a queen.
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
Since bees use vibrations to communicate inside the hive, a different material may interfere with communication, as PMMA has is very rigid material and certainly behaves differently than wax. A study performed with Pierco, also a rigid plastic) did not confirm this assumption.<ref name="Seely T. D., Reich A. M., Tautz J., 1995">Seely T. D., Reich A. M., Tautz J., 1995: Does plastic comb foundation hinder waggle dance
 
Since bees use vibrations to communicate inside the hive, a different material may interfere with communication, as PMMA has is very rigid material and certainly behaves differently than wax. A study performed with Pierco, also a rigid plastic) did not confirm this assumption.<ref name="Seely T. D., Reich A. M., Tautz J., 1995">Seely T. D., Reich A. M., Tautz J., 1995: Does plastic comb foundation hinder waggle dance
communication? http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2005/04/M4095.pdf</ref>  
+
communication? http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2005/04/M4095.pdf</ref>
  
 
==Practicability==
 
==Practicability==

Revision as of 16:23, 18 October 2009

Contents

Document level:

The Beekeeping Crisis in Europe - an Environmentalist's point of view

  1. Outlooks
    1. Organic Varroa Control
      1. Cells and Combs design
        1. PMMA Combs
        2. Drone Combs

How Does it Work?

Matthias Schmidt registered a patent in 1994 for a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, better known under the trademark names Plexiglas or Perspex) comb design. The brood cells have a conic shape – the bottom being wider than the opening and cylinder-shaped. This cell shape allows storing a greater amount of feeding jelly. Due to a richer feeding, the bee larvae hatch earlier, on the 17-18th after egg-laying instead of the 21st day in normal conditions. Varroas mate in the brood cell one day before the hatching of the young bee, that is to say on the 20th after egg-laying. An early hatching prevent thus varroas to reproduce. [1]

Efficiency

Insufficient data.

Risks

Too little knowledge is currently available on which influence polyméthapolymethyl methacrylate might have on bees and honey: It is known that polymethyl methacrylate dust and vapours are irritating for human and other mammals' mucous membranes[2], but, apparently, no toxicity studies neither on PMMA nor on the additives used to enhance its stability, has been performed on insects and on their behaviour in contact with honey in up to now. Even if the product is reputed as of low-toxicity and very stable, there still some degree of uncertainty. The acceptance of plastic is generally low by organic beekeepers.

A too rich feeding of the larvae may result in physiological modifications in workers, as, e.g. enlarged ovaries, which may lead the workers to behave similarly to a queen.

This kind of strong intervention by humans my delay an evolutive adaptation of Apis mellifera. On the other hand, varroa could well evolve to adapt to the new situation and mate earlier, which would render the invention ineffective.

Since bees use vibrations to communicate inside the hive, a different material may interfere with communication, as PMMA has is very rigid material and certainly behaves differently than wax. A study performed with Pierco, also a rigid plastic) did not confirm this assumption.[3]

Practicability

Plastic combs or comb foundations can be inserted in the hive as the usual combs. They break less easily than wax comb during centrifugation.

Some beekeepers have mentioned hygienic problems with other types plastic combs (difficulties cleaning).[4]

Bees show low acceptance, at the beginning at least, of plastic combs. Dipping the comb in syrup or honey of coating with wax increases acceptance. Bees have to be forced on the comb and up to five weeks can be necessary to obtain this acceptance.[5][6]

Bees were reported to store less honey in plastic combs than in wax.[7]

Further Advice

There lack of scientific evidence that this methods bring the desired effects. Due to the potential physiology modifications on bees, this method seems dubious.

Bees have evolved through millennia and certainly know which cell configuration is best for them. Strong interventions by human may add new problems and worsen the current plight of the bee. The method should be banned in organic beekeeping.


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools
Availability Calendar
May 2022
MTWTFSS
171
182345678
199101112131415
2016171819202122
2123242526272829
223031
June 2022
MTWTFSS
2212345
236789101112
2413141516171819
2520212223242526
2627282930