Talk:Shellac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sticky Feet" vs Cocoon[edit]

The references clearly document that the secretion is a cocoon or tunnel formed as the insect traverses the branches of the tree. The secretion is not an adhesive used to adhere the insect to the branch. The insects stay on the branches just fine with their normal feet :-). If one examines Stick Lac, the unprocessed branches containing the shellac resin, one will see the tube-like cocoon structure, as well as Lac bugs within the structure.

However, I do see Andy Dingley's point - though "cocoon" is the industry vernacular, it my be considered a technically inaccurate term for the tunnels formed by the insect as it tranverses the branches. I would be comfortable with substituting "tunnel" for "coccoon" if that seems more palatable.

Woodturner9 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues here: the definition of "what the goop is", Verifiability and also its relevance here.
Much as I respect Jeff Jewitt's woodfinishing skills, he's not an entomologist. Before claiming something is "a cocoon", then we need to reference that from an entomological WP:RS source, not a woodworker. Likewise any claims about sticky feet (which I'm not defending either).
Mostly though, I question relevance. There's no reason that a woodworking article needs to say more than "exuded by lac insects". It's good to avoid saying "lac beetles" (they aren't beetles) and "bugs" is a bit too broad. Scale insect is IMHO about the right level, because it explains why they bother extruding anything. Also they're a common garden pest that many readers will have encountered, albeit different species, but it demonstrates their mode of life. As there is (AFAIK) only one relevant species for commercial shellac, Kerria lacca, we should state that too. The rest of it is debatable. In "WoodWiki" I wouldn't. In a general encyclopedia, maybe we should do. But it's a close call - we don't desperately need huge detail here, yet we must remain reliably sourced and verifiable. Anything dubious must go, even if it leaves the definition quite generic and back to the "exuded from" level.
As to what it actually is, then I admit I'm running off my knowledge of the intimate life of the scale insect. However AIUI, they have a very sedentary life and remain static once feeding, gluing themself down with a waxy (and pesticide resistant) coat of sticklac. They don't pupate in cocoons, nor do they make tunnels. They don't even traverse the branches of trees, once established as adult. Although sticklac could be said to look as if it's covered in tubes and tunnels, those are actually adjacent and overlapping blobs from individuals, not one individual's constructed shelter.
Nice pic here BTW, but I can't find anything showing "tunnels" at all well. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible paragraph, History section[edit]

Paragraph 3 of "History" was full of grammatical errors, did not seem to connect logically to the preceding or following paragraphs, and contained mostly unsourced trivia so I've cut it out. It might be rephrased and reinserted at a more appropriate position, however:

In areas where small caskets or reliquaries were decorated, then a significant number of them were protected with shellac, and from an early period. Painting was done with egg tempera over gesso. Shellac was also used as an adhesive and sealer over inlay work, such as ivory or abalone inlay.

--lizardo_tx (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confectioner's glaze[edit]

Exactly why does "Confectioner's glaze" redirect to zein instead of here? If you Google Confectioner's glaze, nearly all of the results that you will see are shellac, not zein. ( See, for example http://www.chemindustry.com/chemicals/6282556.html ) It seems to me that this redirection could only have been arranged by someone in the zein industry; a possible violation of the NPOV policy. Oskay 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Oskay 8/27/2006[reply]

Farms?[edit]

How did they ever find ENOUGH of the stuff to do what they do with it? Were there little beetle farms?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk)

Good question.. I was looking for a section saying that at some point we figured out how to synthetically produce it (or engineer e. coli to make it for us..) But apparently not. I found the following:
  • Lemons, Gene (April 5, 2011). "Shellac Shortage Bugs Paint Industry - Raw shellac resin". Texas Paint & Wallpaper.
  • (not NPOV, but still): Tomasik, Brian (Jan 29, 2017). "Insect Suffering from Silk, Shellac, Carmine, and Other Insect Products".
Cheers, Jimw338 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dont merge with Lac[edit]

While Shellac is derived from lac insects, the types of people searching for info on shellac might not be interested in the bug. Wskitche 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be merged with Lac, although they should crosslink. There is a large woodworking community, in addition to food, etc. that would be adversely effected should they be merged, unless it is assured that a search will return information on both as it currently does.

68.19.131.219 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely don't merge - widely used in many crafts, and formerly even more so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Death[edit]

"There is a risk that the harvesting process can scoop the insect up along with the secretion, leading to its death." Ummm...who cares? What a risk! KDR (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kill a cow just to get a single batch of milk? Would milk be as useful if there was chunks of dead cow in it? Think about it... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the milk. Ha. But is a bug as valuable as a cow? The wording just makes it sound more catastrophic than it really is. KDR (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We must respect all life, no matter how small. Wait, my immune system probably killed millions of bacteria today. Oh well. I agree somewhat that the wording is a bit off, "killing the insect" or something would be better than "leading to its death" - which truly does sound tragic. 76.29.12.128 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bug is valuable cuz it gives us a product, and the more it doesn't-die the more it can give us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

There's a lot of useful information in here, but the article isn't the easiest in the world to read. I think it could do with being organised into sections (eg production, uses, and so on) in order to aid readability - I've tagged it with cleanup-reorganize for that reason. Hope it's alright. --saxsux (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

According to the article, "The word is a compound of the words "shell" and "lac" (lacquer)". Because this claim is unsourced, I believe this to be incorrect Original Research. The word "Lac" is from the common name of the bug. I expect (but cannot yet confirm) that the relationship to the word lacquer is either coincidental, or the word shellac predates the word lacquer. I am updating the article (with reference) accordingly. -Verdatum (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word does not come from French but from Dutch.
Lac comes from Hindi, and shell from "schel", similar to english "scale".
It was spread over Europe via the VOC (Dutch east india company) since 1602 Asterladybug (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical[edit]

It's an old usenet post of mine, the references are robust enough to make it wikiable, but the style's usenet rather than wiki. Have at it, if anyone wants to do the copyediting - I'm a little busy for the next few days Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some excellent stuff there, thank you. I did a cursory copyedit. I felt a bunch needed to be removed for being off-topic. A lot of that off topic material would be better stuited in other articles, such as varnish. There was some random references towards the end, but they weren't actually sourcing any facts so I removed them from the article. However, they look like they may contain excellent information, and if this is the case, I would love to see as many as possible worked into the article. For this reason, I'm pasting the ones I removed here for posterity,
  • Webb, Marianne. Lacquer: Technology and Conservation. ISBN 0750644125. and Merrifield are pretty much essential.
  • Stalker and Parker (1688). Treatise on Japanning and Varnishing. Tiranti.(which is unreadable)
  • Dossie, Robert. Handmaid of the Arts.
  • Watin. Watin. will give you the techniques, although they're post-period and not intended as a historical survey.
  • Some other period handbooks that are easily available as reprints are

I hope that's all of them. -Verdatum (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading[edit]

Be fair, the things are crushed and then seived. See lac where the the same substance is described without the word shellac and without mention of its more common, eaten by kids use. Boo 8( ... POV fork. One article for "eaten by kids", the other for "filtered out of crushed insects" and no link between the two and yet the lac article is focused on the use made of the creature. This article misleads the reader to think that crushed beetle is not involved with this substance. ~ R.T.G 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[This source http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infpai/shellac.html] would appear to disagree with your portrayal. After all, destruction of the progenitors of next years crop is a poor business decision. --Belg4mit (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uses (on fruit)[edit]

I'd like to comment on the sentence "It is also used to replace the natural wax of the apple, which is removed during the cleaning process". I've read the source and I can't help to think that US Apple(R) (as everybody else in the industry) is providing an excuse to put on this wax. Let's be honest, the only reason to apply the wax, is to make the apple shiny, which we as consumer like to see when we do shopping. The wax cannot be removed by washing and brushing, because by nature the wax will not dissolve in water (unless they use soap of course). Same when you rinse your apple, you will not be able to remove the newly applied wax. Shellac is also applied on other fruits like citrus fruits by the way. Only if you buy organic fruit will you be assured of having no shellac on your fruit (although I've seen non-organic fruit in France with a clear message that no wax was used, I guess they have their reasons). I saw a Dutch documentary about this topic, filming the shellac farms and the fruit processing industry, and an Italian lemon producer was saying she doesn't put wax on her fruit because after that the fruit cannot breathe anymore, basically promoting her organic ones. As an experiment, try scraping of the wax off your apple before eating it. 203.126.161.134 (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wax glazings help prevent dehydration (the Italian's "breathing" apparently), which is why certain long-storing tubers are also coated. --Belg4mit (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References need improving[edit]

There are plenty of them, but mostly anecdotal ("I shellacked my handlebars, and it ROCKS") or handyman-product manufacturers' or vendors' sites, with more or less generic how-to advice. I don't see anything about the lac bug, or the harvesting and processing of shellac. Shellac chemistry points at the "Merk Index" which I presume means the Merck Index, but without access, I don't feel comfortable fixing that. I don't think I want to slap on a refimprove tag, but they do need improving. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skittles candy and Shellac[edit]

There is a link being made on the web to Bug resin and Skittles candy, which would be easy to connect. Shellac is food grade, it coats pills, Skittles are pill-shaped: (Aha Vegetarian! You ate bug resin!) It is traveling around the web like and Urban Legend. If it is true, a better reference is needed. The current ingredients,, according to the Wrigley Brands site, for the Original Flavor Skittles show as:SUGAR, CORN SYRUP, HYDROGENATED PALM KERNEL OIL, APPLE JUICE FROM CONCENTRATE, LESS THAN 2% CITRIC ACID, DEXTRIN, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, COLORING (INCLUDES YELLOW 6 LAKE, RED 40 LAKE, YELLOW 5 LAKE, BLUE 2 LAKE, YELLOW 5, RED 40, YELLOW 6, BLUE 1 LAKE, BLUE 1), ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C).http://www.wrigley.com/global/brands/skittles.aspx. What is the ingredient name for food shellac? Group29 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called shellac, or confectioner's glaze --Belg4mit (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veg*[edit]

Removed sentence about "dubiousness" of shellac in certain diets. The wording was weaselly, and assumed certain varieties of veganism or means of harvesting the shellac. --Belg4mit (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hairspray?[edit]

Wasn't shellac an ingredient in hairspray in the 40s and 50s? I see no mention of it here. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerria lacca vs. Laccifer lacca[edit]

I see lots of sources talking about Laccifer lacca (like this, this, this, and many more), while the article currently only mentions Kerria lacca. Are both commonly used? Should the article mention both?

Sorry, never mind -- they're synonyms for the same species. I'll make this clear in the article, but others are welcome to remove the edit. Brian Tomasik (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shellac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shellac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research needed Shellac vs shellac[edit]

My understanding Shellac as a nail polish is in no way related to shellac from the 'lac bug. Shellac with a capital s is a trademarked name, is dissolved with acetone, cured with UV light. Shellac with a small s is the natural finish, dissolved with alcohol, resistant or impervious (more research needed) to UV light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.226.184 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list item about the nail polish product. Its only relevance is the name; if it becomes notable enough to get its own article (which I doubt) then a dab hatnote would be the way to go. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

shellac as glue for light bulb caps[edit]

the german wiki says schellack is used for light bulbs glueing into electric cap still , Schellack german wiki see under "Gegenwärtige Anwendungen".--Konfressor (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History vs Uses -> Historical[edit]

Shellac is a bug secretion. That's its history. It wasn't developed from something else over some number of iterations of development, so there's not much to say about its history that isn't already well-covered in other sections. Looking at the contents of these two sections, I see no difference between them other than History refers to uses a bit oolder than Uses -> Historical does.

I propse that the contents of History be merged into Uses -> Historical and the History section be removed. I would do it, but I feel like I lack sufficient familiarity with this page and the reasons it was originally split up that way to make such a massive change. What do you think? Adamtakvam (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shellac is widely used in countries that have no indigenous production of it. So its history there is largely about the import of it, and how this transformed from an obscure and expensive rare import into something more widely used, then imported in bulk quantities. (Admittedly that is a bit Euro-centric.) As the import process, thus the price, affected its uses at the time, I'd certainly keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shellac&oldid=1217942534"