I understand the benefits of propolis but some colonies just produce so much. Yesterday, whilst inspecting one of mine, there was so much propolis that, after a couple of minutes, my (nitrile gloved) fingers stuck together, bees stuck my fingers and I could hardly get the frames out.
One observation made in the Marla Spivak video/talk was that the bees do not coat the smooth interiors of the hives. That is also what I have found. Could this be that there is no need, as there are no crevices to hold pathogens, as there would be in a tree or hive made from rough-sawn timber?
I guess it could well be that this is what drives their instincts: rough (which all tree interiors would be, naturally) requiring propolis to a bee, while other things don't. But, as the initial study suggested, they actually DO need it in a modern hive (smooth or otherwise) for the antiviral properties against the increased viral load they face in modern times (I feel like this study was fascinating and very suggestive, but too small a sample-size and needs to be repeated on a larger scale and longer time to be fully proven)
Assuming what we think we now know about propolis is true, you high-lite the very problem: it's necessary for bees, perhaps now more than ever, but a serious pain in the bum for keepers.
I was particularly interested in the experiment where they sprayed the hive with propolis in advance.
A question was asked at the end, and I don't think she understood the question's intent and so her answer was lacking: Should we really be spraying the interior of our hives with resin before putting bees into it?
She thought (paraphrasing) it's beneficial but also nonsensical to collect propolis from bees in order to give it to bees.
Well, that's true. I could argue that Brazilian Stingless Bees produce a TONNE of propolis which is their main harvest rather than honey, and perhaps this could be used. But the health-supplements market has made the prices so high that it's not viable for mere mortals even it the propolis has similar properties.
But they also thought that no chemical alteration is made to the collected resin (other than mixed with wax for easier working), and we have plentiful and easy sources of resin other than propolis.
The study showed that THEIR bees preferred resin from poplar buds, but that might be for reasons of convenience of collection rather than the composition of the resin itself being ideal. I have read other articles that say the same but they didn't cite their sources. Perhaps poplar buds is the only source they recognize or can deal-with. I don't think we know.
So I would like to see a test done where resin is collected from one of the species of pine that they identified as having good antiviral properties and then sprayed to make an envelope for the bees in advance, just as Marla Spivak did with propolis.
We can collect pine resin easily and cheaply and already do-so on an industrial level. The questions would be, does it have the same antiviral effect as propolis in reality as well as the lab, and does it have any toxic effect on the bees vs the stuff they collect for themselves?
IF that worked, then bees that are disinclined to propolize the hive heavily could still benefit from its properties; there could be a product that is basically pine or similar resin in alcohol solution in a spray bottle for treating the inside of a brood-box or super before using it, with instructions to allow the alcohol to evaporate for 48 hrs or whatnot.
You get a workable hive, and healthier bees.
This would mean we can char the insides after use, too, and just re-apply the spray.
I would love to do this experiment myself, but my first hive will be in swarm-season next year and I will not be experimenting with anything at-all until I have more experience and more bugs, nor would a sample-size of 1 be useful information.
