# Probiotics



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

All interesting, though reading up on kombucha (which I'd never heard of) it strikes me that something similar is probably already going on in cells conatining fresh nectar. The caffine (or some other 'ine' component) is supposed to be needed as a source of nitrogen, but that could be present in nectar. Certainly there will be endless bacterial and yeast spores present. I wonder if the bees keep the surface of the nectar clean to some degree, and thus eat the 'mushroom'.

It would be interesting to try brewing some kombucha using nectar and uncapped honey to supply the culture, and tea brewed from flowers as the base fluid.... Bee kombucha ...

Mike.


----------



## luvin honey (Jul 2, 2009)

BWrangler--You've got me fascinated! I already put ACV or kombucha in my hen's water, plus I drink the kombucha. Can you tell me exactly how you used it on your bees? Do you ever spray them with it while working a hive instead of using smoke? What if my kombucha has been overbrewed and headed more towards vinegar--is that still okay?

Very interesting stuff...


----------



## BRescue (Jul 2, 2009)

Are there any peer reviewed human studies on kombucha that quantify it's health benefits? I have seen anecdotal information and wonder if there has been an in depth study ever undertaken. I admit it does seem interesting? Isn't there a base starter that is required to make your own kombucha?
Richard


----------



## Ben Brewcat (Oct 27, 2004)

BRescue said:


> Are there any peer reviewed human studies on kombucha that quantify it's health benefits? I have seen anecdotal information and wonder if there has been an in depth study ever undertaken. I admit it does seem interesting? Isn't there a base starter that is required to make your own kombucha?
> Richard


Unfortunately there have been no peer-reviewed, well-designed studies AFAIK. There are a lot of strongly-held anecdotal opinions though. It seems very reasonable that, if nothing else, it would likely be helpful for people whose normal gut flora has been disrupted, for example by medication or antibiotics. Certainly it's yummy, refreshing, a more healthful alternative to sodas and fun to make. But the wealth of organic acids and other elements generated by the scoby make it a good candidate for nutritive study.

Yes you need a "live" (unpasteurized) culture from which to start; purchase a bottle from any Whole Paycheck, Vitamin Cottage or other health food store as long as it's unpasteurized. There's lots of good information on brewing it out there, and the Meadmaking forum has a couple god threads on kombucha-making.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

In the early spring, I grade my hives strong, average, below average, weak. This year, I sprayed the below average hives with slightly diluted, about30%, solution of overly ripe kombucha. It was probably about 3 weeks old.

The spraying was done incidentally, without any planning, etc., just to watch the initial reaction of the bees. After spraying, the below average hives were left alone, without any additional manipulation or observations.

The kombucha worked better than smoke for controlling the bees in a normal situation.

All the hives were supered.

To evaluate the yard's progress, I'd pop the covers off a couple of strong hives and a couple of weak hives every few weeks. Ten weeks later, I popped the covers off the below average hives and found they had a full super of honey, while all of the others, even those with larger bee populations had none. In fact, they hadn't even entered the supers.

I was quite surprised to say the least! And I'd had forgotten about the incidental kombucha spraying until looking at my notes a week later.

To say it was a test is probably a stretch. But the observations are interesting none the less.

I think Mike has a good idea. The ARS initially notes significant differences in the critters found in managed, treated, feral and African hives. Until they come out with the tested and proved bee critter zoo goo probeeotic, we could try making our own. Maybe tossing in a little bee bread would add to the mix.

I've tried making kombucha with honey. The results were horrible to my human taste. There were just too many wild yeasty beasties. But it might be just what the bees need.

I first learned of kombucha here at Beesource from Ben Brewcat. The starter normally consists of a symbiotic bacterial/yeast cellulose mat sometimes called a mushroom or scoby, and a small amount of very ripe kombucha. It's a byproduct of producing kombucha and is normally tossed out. If you can find someone making kombucha in your area, they would give you one. If not, a good internet source is:

http://www.happyherbalist.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=4

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

I have some sauerkraut brewing in a crock right now. It's probiotic. Normally I just dump out the water after it is done fermenting. I'll have to try giving a few hives some of the sauerkraut brine water.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Then we'll put some Terramycin or Tylosin or fumidil in and see what survives?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I was first taken back thinking of sauerkraut brine. But it's been reported that bees actually prefer salty water. I've seen a test done with various concentrations of salty water used as a water source. And was surprised by the concentrations and the bees preferences.

Sorry, I don't remember the details, only that I was surprised by it.

And if they get a few probiotic creatures with the salty water, maybe it's for the better.

I have pondered how adding anything not considered 'natural'(which is it's own can of worms) into a hive would be perceived. First, it can foster the idea that we can somehow manage affairs better than the bees. Like Michael infers, that's a slippery slope most of us have been on at one time or another and have repented from.

But natural beekeeping is far from letting the bees just do everything themselves. They are no longer in a natural environment. And even if a beekeeper refrains from adding to the chemical soup the bees live in, it's still there in the environment. And the bee, an electrostatic charged environmental sampler, brings it all back to the hive. Where their affects synergistically accumulate. And in my opinion, exacerbate many normally insignificant problems.

So, how would one run hives naturally if some significant component of hive life/health has been eliminated from the hive? It might require putting that missing element back into the hive from a source that might not naturally be found there.

Where to start? I think the ARS is headed in the right direction. 

The concept of a colony as a super organism was a breakthrough idea in its time. Turning that concept around in the other direction and thinking of each individual as a super organism of many living, inter-related systems is also applicable.

If I understand correctly, a human organism is comprised of more non-human DNA than human DNA. All of it necessary for health and life. 

I chose Kombucha because it has been proven, through thousands of years, to do no harm to humans and to be beneficial. My limited 'test' was done to determine if it was harmless to the bees. And to see if any positive results were possible. 

It was a shot in the dark, as nothing is known about those complex relationships in a bee. But as all life is related. And it's more similar in need and function than it is different. Kombucha was my best first guess.

Few beekeepers will admit that honeybees can be found sipping up their own probiotic drink at the base of a compost or manure pile. And that they often prefer it to a 'clean' water source located nearby. I thought about this in regards to a probiotic source. But something about our concept of pure and natural/hive/honey gets in the way. Somehow, I found it more appropriate to introduce Kombucha into a hive rather than compost/manure tea. :>)))

Could it be that some compound, now found in the bees natural probiotic drink, is deleterious to their health. 

We'll all know more when the ARS folks get into the details.


----------



## BRescue (Jul 2, 2009)

This is definitely facinating and could be break through stuff. I wonder what happens to tracheal mites or varroa when they are exposed to any of the probiotics? Any thoughts?
Richard


----------



## luvin honey (Jul 2, 2009)

Well, of course bees are not humans, but in humans probiotics are healthful by creating an environment with so many good bacteria that the bad ones are crowded out. That increases the overall health of the human. I imagine that probiotics probably wouldn't kill mites or any other diseases but hopefully just create an overall healthier bee able to withstand health issues. 

But, bees are not humans. I've been already giving my chickens and turkeys kombucha and ACV with no obvious ill effects, but it'd sure be nice to have some real studies on such things.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re: Probiotics/super-organisms*



BWrangler said:


> So, how would one run hives naturally if some significant component of hive life/health has been eliminated from the hive? It might require putting that missing element back into the hive from a source that might not naturally be found there. [...] Where to start? I think the ARS is headed in the right direction. [...] The concept of a colony as a super organism was a breakthrough idea in its time. Turning that concept around in the other direction and thinking of each individual as a super organism of many living, inter-related systems is also applicable. [...] We'll all know more when the ARS folks get into the details.
> 
> Regards
> Dennis


Hi Dennis,

I've been thinking about similar things lately, in a couple of slightly different directions. First, thinking about the mechanics of genetic transmission in a population allows a focus on just queens and drones, and after a while I found myself thinking about the workers as relevant only as expressions of the genetics of the parents. It occurred to be that they can be compared to the body of an animal or human, or to some of its parts. This seems useful be cause we usually focus on what the workers are doing, and forget that they are 'just' expressing the genetic code of the parents. If we want to change what they do, we have to look much harder at the mechanisms of selection - which is just what we should be doing in my view...

The second aspect of this was looking at how the bees in an apiary surrounded by wilderness might interact with suurounding wild bees in genetic terms. Imagining I was looking down I thought about the circular 'buffer zone' where they would interact. At the time I was focussed on how the lacking 'hygiene' gene, which would be missing in the apiary due to lack of selection, would affect the wild bees. 

Because the gene is recessive, the drones from the apiary would be effectively toxic to the wild queens. Each time wild queens mate with apiary drones they lose a 'hygenic' subfamily, and so their chances of survival decrease. As a consequence, near the apiary it is most likely there would be no viable wild colonies at all, and a much reduced population. As you move away and the drones from the wild dominate proceedings, the hygiene gene would be expressed more and more, and the bees pefectly capable of managing varroa.

Anyway, all this got me thinking that to understand the life-form in this kind of way required a view that made the local population the super-organism. Because all individual colonies interact critically with their neighbours, you have to look at the whole lot in order to see what is happening.

I suppose just means that it is useful to look at all the different mechanisms up close, and that taking different persectives is necessary to that.

Does that make sense to you?

Mike


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

a couple of thoughts:

1. such research is a joke unless SIGNIFICANT effort is geared towards looking at the microbial culture in hives that are not treated....with artificial feeds, essential oils, organic acids, sugar dusting, antibiotics, pyrethroids, organophosphates, etc. as far as i know, the ars doesn't even have access to such colonies.

2. jeff pettis (of the beltsville lab), in a presentation to our local county club several months ago, said that the initial work on probiotics showed big improvements...but that those early tests were on caged bees (not a colony with comb foraging). when they did a trial on actual foraging colonies, the advantage disapeared.

3. Although there are a few things we got wrong, the basic premis of "no bee is an island" is absolutely relevant to this discussion. it can be read on our website:
http://BeeUntoOthers.com/
We have some looming deadlines on other projects, but we will be updating this after mid September.

deknow


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_I wonder what happens to tracheal mites or varroa when they are exposed to any of the probiotics? Any thoughts?_

I would suspect zero impact. (unless the mites have these probiotics in the mite gut flora.)

Lactobacillus lives on vegetables and plants. I'm sure the mites encounter some form of exposure in the natural world.

Bees use various probiotics to make bee bread. I'm sure mites get exposure ot these probiotics as the honey and pollen are fermenting in the hive.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Hive Microflora and microfauna*



Countryboy said:


> _ Bees use various probiotics to make bee bread. I'm sure mites get exposure ot these probiotics as the honey and pollen are fermenting in the hive._


_

As far as I know the process of turning nectar to pollen simply involves driving off the excess water by evaporation, and fermentation is something that must be minimised. I wonder if there is a mechanism to do that - to suppress (fungal) yeasts - or whether it is simply a race to get the water out before they can do too much harm? 

I think the term 'probiotics' refers primarilty to a brew of micro-organisms deliberately made by humans for medicinal purposes. The idea is that it is good to have a wide range of such organisms in the gut, and that modern diets, overenthusiastic hygienec habits, and, especially antibiotics create a harmful imbalance. 

What bees do is just what comes naturally. In the course of their day they come into contact with billions of bacteria, fungal spores and viruses, and as and when they can these microrganisms do what all life does - grab some energy use it to reproduce themselves. These are simply envirenmental micro-organisms, and cannot be labelled 'probiotics'.

To take it from there with a bit of thinking aloud: those micro-organisms best at doing so in any particular environment come to form dominant populations. In a healthy hive no single strain of microrganism gets to form a dominant population - or what we would call an 'infection'. 

This is partly - so the theory goes at least - because having millions of different life-forms present is what prevents any single one becoming dominant. What is happening is that they are all too busy fighting, trying to eat each-other and trying not to be eaten by each-other. 

It has been noted that all these life-forms are very sensitive to the acid/alkaline balance, and I believe I've seen an analysis somewhere stating that honey and sugar syrup vary greatly in their effect on hive ph, and therefore on the micro-organisms. 

It is interesting too that sugars are natural antibiotics. Nectar can be stored as honey for the same reason jams can (that's 'jelly' to some). I think this is because they drive out water - and all life needs water. 

Fungal and bacterial spores can, presumably survive in honey - at least you would think so. If that were the case then a spoonful of honey in water would supply a new viable environment.... any takers on that one?

In general I reckon a reasonably healthy environment for bees in one in which there is a good range (i.e. billions and billions) of different micro-organisms present. Any kind of 'treatment' applied to the land on large scale will alter that balance, as will simple monculture. At some point this will affect the ability of bees to thrive. The application of antibiotics is of course like grenade gong off in the hive. I reckon a good old-fashioned wilderness stuffed with rotting bodies has to be the best possible bio-diverse 'natural probiotic'. Failing that (heaven forbid) an organic garden near the apiary might be thought essential. 

Mike_


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> As far as I know the process of turning nectar to pollen simply involves driving off the excess water by evaporation, and fermentation is something that must be minimised. I wonder if there is a mechanism to do that - to suppress (fungal) yeasts - or whether it is simply a race to get the water out before they can do too much harm?


this is not correct. honey is much more than dehydrated nectar. there are active enzymes in the honey stomach, some of which come from microbial cultures living there, that are part of the production of honey. despite common belief, it should be considered a fermented food.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> Any kind of 'treatment' applied to the land on large scale will alter that balance, as will simple monculture.


...all these things are down in the noise compared to what formic acid application does to the microbial culture.

deknow


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

deknow said:


> ... honey is much more than dehydrated nectar. there are active enzymes in the honey stomach, some of which come from microbial cultures living there, that are part of the production of honey. despite common belief, it should be considered a fermented food.
> deknow


That makes sense (bee's stomach?) - although I still object to the term 'fermented' which I reckon strictly applies to the actions of yeasts alone - the one that turns sugars to alcohol and Co2.

That aside, I think we agree?

Mike


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

check your definition...it would exclude using "fermented" to describe foods fermented largely with lactobacillus...like pickles, saurkraut, etc. generally, fermented refers to a breakdown via microbes....fermenting is rotting, sometimes we, the bees, or other organisms control fermentation via innoculation, or by creating a specific enironment (ie, pickles are fermented in brine to make an inhospitable environment for yeasts and molds, but good for lab and lactobacillus).

deknow


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Yes, you are right. I guess I'm infected by too much beermaking!

Mike


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

fyi, the transformation of pollen into beebread is progressive, and begins as the bee moistens the pollen while still on the flower (this is the one fact that the abj series got wrong...they claimed it begins when being packed into cells).

yeasts, molds, and many species of bacillus work for the first 12 hours, and the result is more acidic environment, which is inhospitable to these microbes, but great for others. this progresses into a kind of "pollen pickle", which is much more nutritious than pollen (twice the water soluble proteins), and can be stored.

deknow


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_As far as I know the process of turning nectar to pollen simply involves driving off the excess water by evaporation, and fermentation is something that must be minimised._

That sounds like alchemy. Nectar does not turn into pollen.

Scientists have tried evaporating the water out of nectar. They can't make honey. The enzymes and microbes of the bee gut flora of the bee turn nectar into honey. Fermentation of honey makes mead.

Pollen is fermented with honey and bee enzymes and microbes to make bee bread. Fermentation is desirable to produce the food fed to brood.


----------

