# Is sugar water causing our disease problems?



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

I am not sure that the correlation can be made that if refined sugar is harmful to humans, then it must also be for bees. But keep us posted on what your studies find out as that is how we grow as a group.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

To compare human disease like diabetes and cancer to honeybees is comparing apples to oranges. Honeybees cannot suffer from either because of physiology. Example humans have a pancreas honeybees do not. Humans have red blood honeybees do not. Humans live app. 75 years honey bees four to eight weeks. 

They do require have the same nutritional requirements, honeybees need complex carbohydrates and proteins. But acquire them threw nectar which is complex sugars like cane sugar. Then convert them to simple sugar and protein from pollen. 
Since you are a beginner, never take all their honey only the surplus. I only feed sugar syrup when they are in need. Most years I don’t need to feed them at all. I do feed when I am starting colonies form packages on new foundation or the stimulate them to increase brood production for early pollination, needs like blueberries. Or queen rearing. 

Ensuring they have adequate food reserves in the fall is essential to keeping your bees alive threw the winter, in my areas 60 to 90 pounds will get them threw the harshest winter. Leaving all the honey then extracting is spring would seem implacable and unnecessary.

I don’t take antibiotics unless I’m sick so why would you just dust your bees with antibiotics unless they are sick. It’s been many years since I have needed to.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Your post is wrong on so many points I can't begin to address them all. But I will address this, 1:1 and 2:1 is actually easier for bees to digest then honey. Honey is a survival food for bees. In order to be healthy they also need pollen and different types of pollen. This is what provides their protein and essential amino acids. 

Second, feed, while important is not the only factor in diseases that bees get. There are a host of diseases, AFB, EFB, mites, nosema and others that have nothing to do with the honey in the hive. And speaking of nosema, 1:1 has been shown to be an effective way to get rid of nosema in your bees. 

I use sugar as a feed to my bees with no flow is on and during spring build up. I also use it in pollen patties I feed to them. My bees are healthy and build up into nice strong colonies. I don't use medication in any of my operation. Your assumption that if you feed sugar you need to medicate is not only wrong, but also leads me to believe you have not done much research into your hypothesis. 

Good luck with your bees, but I suggest you read up on best practices...I have seen hives with loads of honey die out from beekeeper neglect.


----------



## honeydreams (Aug 10, 2009)

If you read Ross conrad in bee Culture this month he goes in to HFCS and the harm it does to bees. it is a eye opener.


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

Honeydreams,

Are you talking about the Feb or Jan issue? Please don't tell me that it is the Feb issue as I will scream.  For the past two months, I was lucky to get my magazine by the second week into the month. 

You know when you are hungry for a magazine to arrive and it doesn't. So please tell me that it is the Jan issue. It would be too painful to know that fellow beeks receive this wonderful magazine prior to the month, while I have had to wait. Just maybe, my postman reads it, which would explain why I get it so late....


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Brent Bean said:


> To compare human disease like diabetes and cancer to honeybees is comparing apples to oranges. Honeybees cannot suffer from either because of physiology. Example humans have a pancreas honeybees do not. Humans have red blood honeybees do not. Humans live app. 75 years honey bees four to eight weeks.


Sorry I did not mean to imply that honey bees get human diseases. I just meant to suggest if humans are more susceptible to diseases when eating a diet high in refined foods including sugar than it would only make sense that bees would also be more susceptible to disease with an increased percentage of feeding isolated glucose. 

alpha6. Sorry I did not mean to imply that feeding ANY glucose water would make the bees dependant on medication. My bad. I think it is possible that the more percentage of glucose water a bee consumes the higher chance that bee will become more susceptible to disease. Most humans do not consume only refined sugar. Like bees do not only consume glucose water. Humans get a variety of other foods but when human cultures become civilized and eat a higher percentage of refined foods common to industrialized nations they developed more susceptibility to disease. 
I agree with you that bees probably can digest pure glucose much faster than honey but that does not mean it more nutritious. 

I do have a question. How did Bees survive before the advent of chemicals to kill off all the bugs. I assume bees consuming pure glucose 1:1 is a new thing in their history of evolution. I imagine bees evolved consuming natures food like pollen and honey. They did not seem to need different kinds of medication to defend them from the invaders because it did not exist. If there were no medications available today what would happen to the big operations that depend on the drugs because their bees are deprived of a greater percentage of their honey than the smaller hobbist. I am really asking but I bet that the rampant diseases were not common to beek at the turn of the century. I am sure someone can fill in the pieces for me. When did it become common to feed bees Pure glucose or frutose which is much worse if it matches the effects in humans? When did the major bee diseases hit the scene? 

It was common to believe our food only consisted of carbs, fats, and protein. Then researchers learned about the vitamins and minerals. At one time researchers thought those few nutrients were all you need to become healthy. 
Just in the last few years researchers have discovered over 5000 phytochemicals plants make that were unknown to us before. They think there are many more to be discovered. For example, in a carrot there are about 300 phytochemicals present that keep us healthy. 
The point is the pollen is collected from a variety of plants. I bet protein is not the only valuable component to pollen. I would think bees are collecting hundreds of other phytochemicals present in nectar and pollen which contribute to the bees health. There are probably many known and unknown factors in natural bee food (honey and pollen) which contributes to their health and ability to fight disease. If bees follow the same evolutionary principle as humans then The more percentage of glucose water we substitute with honey in their diet the more likely that bee colony will lack the nutrients required to resist disease. 

What got me thinking about this was when I started beek and I was shocked at all the chemicals beek wanted me to put in the hive to keep them healthy. Once I learned about the sugar water it seemed to make sense to me. I just wanted to see what the experts thought. Thanks.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

honeydreams said:


> If you read Ross conrad in bee Culture this month he goes in to HFCS and the harm it does to bees. it is a eye opener.


Sorry but what is HFCS? Thanks in advance.


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

HFCS is High Fructos Corn Syrup, which many commercial beeks feed to bees because of it's ability to last much longer than sugar syrup without spoiling or yeasting. also because it is more readily available than sugar syrup and is probably cheaper as well, not positive on that point. I myself used it for one year then read some negative bee health reports about it so I stopped after that one season. Now, I strive to not have to feed bees but will when needed, and only use sugar water syrup at those times.


----------



## BigDaddyDS (Aug 28, 2007)

HFCS is High-Fructose Corn Syrup
-----
There is a lot to be learned through researching honeybee nutrition. If that's a path you choose to go down, I would offer one simple caution. Don't let your own personal bias, and possibly an agenda against refined food stuff, lead your research. To truly come to scientific conclusions, one has to abandon beliefs and rely solely on fact.

Refined white table sugar ISN'T glucose. It's sucrose. Sucrose is a compound molecule of glucose and fructose. Honey ALSO is composed of glucose and fructose, by the way. 1:1 sugar syrup is actually nutritionally close to nectar. 

As you do your research, you'll find that your Sugar in the Raw, which some people believe is "better" for you than refined white table suger, contains some of the molasses and impurities that would prove toxic to bees. Sugar in the Raw is NOT a product that you want to feed with.

Leaving plenty of feed (in the form of honey) is a no-brainer. Honey, most times, IS the best food for the bees. Especially when it's composed of mixed forage. However, you'll also find that not ALL honey is nutritionally complete for the bees either. Even some HONEY can be toxic to the bees!

In fact, you'll find that there are a lot of nutritional differences between humans and bees. But don't let yourself be clouded by your own beliefs.


----------



## honeydreams (Aug 10, 2009)

CentralPAguy said:


> Are you talking about the Feb or Jan issue?QUOTE]
> its was in the jan issue.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

Beginnerhives:

Your question, how did honeybees live before the advent of all the chemicals to control the bugs? 
The same way they do now, if someone is telling you to dump chemicals in you hives, just to prevent them form getting sick in my opinion it’s bad advice. Are chemicals needed? Sometimes, works the same way for me. When I come down with a bad case of Montezuma’s revenge I will take chemicals to stop it. When my bees develop a case of nosema I will treat them as well. When all is well I don’t. 
As far as the bugs you refer to varroa and tracheal mites didn’t show up in North America until the 80’s it set the beekeeping world on it’s head. Action was required until we could get a handle on it and not have honeybees become extinct. Today many other management programs have gotten many beekeepers off the chemical treadmill. This is known as IPM (integrated pest management) example resistant strains of bees like Russian, Buckfast, New World Carnolian and Minnesota hygienic lines. Sugar dusting, screen bottom boards and many other methods. The chemical treadmill was only intended to be a crutch. I found that honeybees are very resilient despite bad decisions made by me.


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

"How did Bees survive before the advent of chemicals to kill off all the bugs." Actually the native American Honey Bee didn't and actually died long before man got in the area. 

Like others have said, 1:1 is a good feed and very close to nectar. HFCS can have toxic effects on bees and you can get the info from Randy Olivers web site if you don't get the articles. 

Lastly, search the use of Essential Oils as an alternative for treating your bees with medication and learn what to look for so you know when to treat and when it isn't needed. You can find lots of info on EO's again on Randy Olivers site as well as searching this forum...lots of great info there.

Best of luck and may you always have great bees.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.

Sure but most of it is so crystallized in the spring that you can't extract it. However there are many who believe that honey is better for bees than sugar and try to leave them enough for winter. There is research to show that nectar and honey promote "good" microbes in the gut of the bees that displaces things like AFB and Nosema and that these quickly die out when feeding sugar. This probably has more to do with pH and micronutrients than it does with how refined the sugar is. Research shows that unrefined sugar is hard on bees.

Many of the fathers of modern beekeeping firmly believed that honey was more nutritious for bees than sugar syrup and many today still believe that. Read G.M. Doolittle, C.C. Miller, Richard Taylor, Jay Smith etc.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesmorethan.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#naturalfood
http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm


----------



## devdog108 (May 7, 2009)

I do have a question. How did Bees survive before the advent of chemicals to kill off all the bugs. I assume bees consuming pure glucose 1:1 is a new thing in their history of evolution. I imagine bees evolved consuming natures food like pollen and honey. They did not seem to need different kinds of medication to defend them from the invaders because it did not exist. If there were no medications available today what would happen to the big operations that depend on the drugs because their bees are deprived of a greater percentage of their honey than the smaller hobbist. I am really asking but I bet that the rampant diseases were not common to beek at the turn of the century. I am sure someone can fill in the pieces for me. When did it become common to feed bees Pure glucose or frutose which is much worse if it matches the effects in humans? When did the major bee diseases hit the scene? 

It was common to believe our food only consisted of carbs, fats, and protein. Then researchers learned about the vitamins and minerals. At one time researchers thought those few nutrients were all you need to become healthy. 
Just in the last few years researchers have discovered over 5000 phytochemicals plants make that were unknown to us before. They think there are many more to be discovered. For example, in a carrot there are about 300 phytochemicals present that keep us healthy.

As many have said before me, they didn't make it here in what we call the Good Ol'e USA. Hence European Honeybees. BUT, I was ready somewhere the other day about CCD and the different diseases HB's have dealt with. If I can find the book or article, you will see that CCD did happen in the late 1800's early 1900's. They just didnt know what to call it. The other diseases did exists but because of human evolution, in particular science, they just didn't really know how or what to call it or deal with it. The "great die off" in 2006 and 2007 was by far the worst experienced that we know of, but there were other instances throughout the 18-1900's. Cancer in humans and diabetes did occur throughout history, but there was just no name for them, nor the ability to diagnose them like we have today. Most beeks want to leave the honey on for them, an then take the "SPARE". Ask 10 beeks, get 10 different answers(that should be the BS addage). I was talking to lady at the gym who use to suffer from really really life threatening allergies. On a doctors advice, she started taking honey from local beeks(she came to me only when she found out I had bees, the other beeks no longer raise them and she wants my honey). She now has no allergies than affect her more than any other. She would bet you that because of the local diversity in the honey here, her immune system was able to build up, and help her body fight off these allergies. Once upon a time, everyone thought the world was flat........imagine what we will know tomorrow....I can tell you that thanks to these guys on BS and the 1000's of girls in that little hive in my back yard, I have been taken back to school, and for the first time in a VERY LONG TIME, i understand more about nature than i ever cared to learn about before. i am facinated by them every day, and learning about them forces you to learn about the natural diversity and fragility of our worldy ecosystem.......


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

Beginnerhives, 

I know that you want to keep your bees chemical free. Yet your bees are out visiting who knows what and bringing back chemicals to the hive. There are alot of pesticides out there and some are distributed systemicly within the plant system.

When I read claims about organic honey, I wonder how they manage to keep the bees on their acreage.


----------



## jnaurot (Apr 27, 2009)

Hey CentralPAguy check this out

Bee Culture
Your February 2010 Bee Culture - Digital Edition is now available
Thu, 1/14/10	7KB

I get the online version - it's way too long till March...


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.http://


Thanks for the great info. 
I will have time later tonight to dive into it. Since I do not have much experiene in beek I appriciate learning from all of your collective experiences. 

Does anyone have any information of the chemical composition of nectar? I will try to find it on my own but I would appriciate any help. thanks again :gh:


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I know the honey board has the chemical composition of Honey somewhere on their site. Except for the effect of the invertase from the bees on the nectar and the removal of water, nectar should be similar. In other words, the water content is less in honey (more in nectar) and there is more sucrose in nectar that is broken down by the invertase in the honey into fructose (levulose) and glucose (dextrose).


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

beginnerhives said:


> The point is we steal the honey they produce and feed them the same empty calorie crap (pure empty glucose) and expect them not to suffer the consequences.
> 
> Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.


We? Mark Twain said only people who should say "WE" are politicians and people with tape worm.

I have to disagree with your comments. I don't steal all the bees' honey and feed back sugar. I'm running 750+ colonies and many hundreds of nucs. My management plan does not favor feeding sugar. I manage my bees so the Fall flow will be left for winter feed. I weigh all my colonies and only feed those colonies that are light, and only what they need to survive the winter and early spring. So, what if the bees didn't get a Fall flow...as happened this year. Should I allow my bees to starve because I don't want them ingesting empty calorie glucose crap...sucrose actually...???

As far as leaving all the summer produced honey on the colonies...with many colonies producing 100-200 pounds, just how would that work out?

I think you've been reading too many fantasy bee books like the one cited here in this thread. Some of us are diligent beekeepers and respectful of our bees. Give us a break.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

>>>If there were no medications available today what would happen to the big operations that depend on the drugs because their bees are deprived of a greater percentage of their honey than the smaller hobbist.<<<

If you are interested in being "scientific" you can't start with false hypothesis.

First, you assume that big operations have larger percent losses of colonies than hobbyists.
Then you assume big operators feed more sugar than hobbyists.
Then you assume these "assumed" larger losses are caused by the "assumed" increase of sugar.
Then you assume big operators depend on drugs more so than hobbyists to keep their bees alive, based on "assumed" larger losses and "assumed" greater dependence on sugar. 
Then you assume the bees are more dependent on drugs because of eating sugar.

While it is always good to look at SOP from a different viewpoint, it needs to be done in a logical scientific manner.
I _assume_ you would be well advised to go back to the beginning and assess your assumptions.
Sheri


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

In our climate to leave solely honey on the hive could be devistating. Especially if that honey has any canola honey in it. The bees could survive on pure alfalfa or clover honey but the risk is higher for deaths.
The reason is this:
All honey in each cell has an amount of pollen in it. In our cold climates when bees can not cleanse that often, pollen in the honey can clog the gut. Pure sugar or HFCS has no pollen and thus very little byproduct wieghing the bee down. 
I think there needs to be a balanced approach. When the final complete hive check is made, one should check for pollen stores. Pollen is the protien the bees needs. If the stores of pollen are low, supplement. The bees will utilize the pollen when they need to. For example when they want to put a little fat on for the winter. Or when they start to rear brood. 
However in the cold climate of winter, pure syrup of some kind is best to promote a healthy bee. This ensures a minimum of waste built up in the bee gut.
Pure syrup = little waste---thus less cleansing flights
Pollen = waste byproduct that needs to be removed more often ---thus more cleansing flights needed, but not necessarliy able to do because of the cold no fly days.
All honey contains a measure of pollen = a good deal of waste byproduct created --- thus more cleansing flights needed in a climate that does not always co-operate.


----------



## c10250 (Feb 3, 2009)

"How did Bees survive before the advent of chemicals to kill off all the bugs." 

Well, in the Americas, they didn't survive. All honeybees became extinct, and were re-introduced.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

LABORATORY COMPARISON OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, GRAPE SYRUP, HONEY,
AND SUCROSE SYRUP AS MAINTENANCE FOOD FOR CAGED HONEY BEES
Roy J. BARKER Yolanda LEHNER
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Bee
Research Laboratory, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, Arizona 85719

SUMMARY
Honey or high fructose corn syrup fed to worker bees failed to show
any advantage over sucrose syrup. Grape syrup caused dysentery and
reduced survival. Survival was longest on sucrose syrup, and the
difference was significant. Survival on grape syrup was reduced
significantly. The difference between honey and high fructose corn was
non-significant (Table 1).

Apidologie 9 (1978) 111-116


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

c10250 said:


> Well, in the Americas, they didn't survive. All honeybees became extinct, and were re-introduced.


Everything I have read says there were never any native _honeybees_ in the Americas, only other types of bees. Honeybees were brought here for the first time in the 1600's.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Not too long ago they found fossils of a native honeybee. They went extinct a long time ago but they were here.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45857/title/Fossil_shows_first_all-American_honeybee
Sheri


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

North America did too have a native honeybee.

A roughly 14-million-year-old fossil unearthed in Nevada preserves what’s clearly a member of the honeybee, or Apis, genus, says Michael Engel of the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

Apis nearctica's honeybee ancestors may have made their way over a land bridge from Asia to traverse this great distance, Engel postulates as he reimagines the old view of honeybees. I got to overturn some of my own stuff, he says.

[one bee, however, doesn't tell much of a story. we don't know if they even had colonies and stored honey]


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.


This is actually being done on a regular basis if you consider feral bees to be a "control group" in a study of honey bees. 

While our "kept" hives, often fed with sugar, are declining, so are the "feral" colonies which are never fed refined sugar. Might be something to consider. 

I'm not a scientist, just an observer.

Wayne


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The idea that "most" beekeepers feed sugar is an error. Most don't. The beekeepers that raise the country's queen bees and packaged bees use tons of it, and they produce far more bees per hive than regular beekeepers do. These guys are experts on raising bees and they have honey bee nutrition down to a science. 

The current trend in the news media is to suggest all of the bees problems are caused by beekeepers. This is utter foolishness. It's like saying people have the flu because they don't live right. There are serious contagious disorders out there and we would have these problems whether there was commercial beekeeping or not. 

Plagues and famines, droughts and floods have always been with us. These are not some sort of punishment from God. Neither is the current plight of the honey bee the result of some gross violation of Mother Nature. We are in an unfortunate period for beekeeping, and are short on good answers. But bees and beekeeping will survive.

Pete


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beginnerhives said:


> Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.


Read up on this under *Preparing Colony for Winter
*http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/managing-colonies-for-high-honey-yields/
Letting the bees have the fall flow has been common practice for a long time.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Not too long ago they found fossils of a native honeybee. They went extinct a long time ago but they were here.
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45857/title/Fossil_shows_first_all-American_honeybee


Impressive! I stand corrected. 
Amazing what they can tell from that squashed jumble.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Amazing what they can tell from that squashed jumble.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but they can't tell that much from one squashed bee. We don't know how it got there, or if there were ever very many. Could be just an isolated example, could be they were everywhere back then

Pete


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>I think there needs to be a balanced approach

I agree tammy!


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

devdog108 said:


> ....you will see that CCD did happen in the late 1800's early 1900's. They just didnt know what to call it. .....




Without knowing what causes "CCD" now, you can't say it is the same thing experienced in the 1800's. The symptoms may be similar, but this could be entirely circumstantial. 
It is a little like comparing a man found dead in a field in 1890 to one found dead in a field in 2009. Same symptoms, same malady? Not necessarily. The 1890's man could have been run down by a horse, the 2009 man could have fallen from an airplane. While the 2009 man _might_ have been run down by a horse, without evidence we just do not know. 
Sheri


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> >>>If there were no medications available today what would happen to the big operations that depend on the drugs because their bees are deprived of a greater percentage of their honey than the smaller hobbist.<<<
> 
> If you are interested in being "scientific" you can't start with false hypothesis.
> 
> ...


Thanks everyone for the posts. I have learned a lot already. I am in no way being critical of your individual beek practices. WHY? Because I have feed nothing but Sugar water last spring to get the bees drawing comb. I did not extract any honey in the fall but I might have to feed in the spring because I am expanding. I also killed a strong hive from my own stupidity.  So I am not judging any of you. My interest in beek is purely for the ecology and what a great learning experience. My daughter actually began this as a home school project. 
I would like not to have to use any chemicals on my hive. I am using bottom screen boards and such. I am just trying to find out what I can do to stay as natural as possible. 



I just read my comment and it sounded a bit over the top. :doh:
What I really should have said 
"I have seen some beek in my area feed sugar water after the harvest to allow the bees to build up a better store for the winter. I assume they take more honey than the bees need for the winter. So they have to feed in the fall and the spring. I just assumed bigger operations would be compelled to take the most amount of honey than my local groups because honey is worth more than sugar water. I guess I was wrong. Cant win them all. 

My assumption. The more sugar water you feed the higher the chance the bees will have a more compromised immune system. As a consequence the bees will be less able to fight disease and need more medications. My assumptions only come from studying human populations and assuming that bees might suffer the same consequences from departing from their native foods. That is all. 

From reading a few posts that compare sucrose and fructose and honey looked at survival, I think. I am more interested in research which is done more at the cellular level. I would like to know if there is a difference in immune function when feed different foods? thanks everyone. 
Barry. I had trouble with the link. Preparing Colony for Winter


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> My assumption. The more sugar water you feed the higher the chance the bees will have a more compromised immune system. As a consequence the bees will be less able to fight disease and need more medications. My assumptions only come from studying human populations and assuming that bees might suffer the same consequences from departing from their native foods. That is all. 

I am sorry but underlying your assumption is an additional assumption that bee nutrition is even remotely similar to human nutrition, which it isn't. Besides, what native foods are you talking about, vis a vis humans? Acorns?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

beginnerhives said:


> I am just trying to find out what I can do to stay as natural as possible.


A commendable goal and your statement "as natural as possible" sounds pragmatic as well. Just remember to start with an open mind.



beginnerhives said:


> My assumptions only come from studying human populations and assuming that bees might suffer the same consequences from departing from their native foods. That is all.


Careful with assumptions. Bees and humans are very different. 



beginnerhives said:


> I would like to know if there is a difference in immune function when feed different foods?


 Read the study post 24 by Peter "Survival was longest on sucrose syrup, (than honey or HFCS)and the difference was significant." Would not survival be a good determinant of immune function? I think it might come down to a matter of degree. A diet restricted exclusively to sucrose would be quite detrimental, but who does that? Beeks are more knowledgeable about bee nutritional needs than any time in the past, taking steps to supplement what their available habitat might lack. I would be more concerned with immune function being compromised by the decrease in diversity of forage sources and the increase in the myriad environmental hazards they are asked to endure. 
Sheri


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

All in all less sugar means healthier bees. Only feed when colonies are low on stores, or when doing splits with no field bees. I have read that if your bees don’t have to flex their wing muscles all winter the will require less honey. You know like a warmer winter where you use less gas, wood, or electric for heat. I heard allot of beeks saying their bees starved out with honey two inches from them. I belive in using a winter hive cover if your a snow bird. It keeps the hive temps warm enough on a cold winter day that bees are able to eat, clean, and unwind the stress of winter. Yes even on cloudy days according to my temp records on my daily observations and recordings. Ventilation is also another part of the combo for success.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Honey Bee Central said:


> All in all less sugar means healthier bees.


I don't know where you guys get this stuff. Is sugar water causing our disease problems? How about, no. A I Root studied this one more than 100 years ago and found that pure cane sugar is the best supplementary food for bees. Obviously it has no protein value and is only the carbohydrate compound of their diet. Why is it best? Because it's pure carbohydrate. Everything from HFCS to honey on down to honey dew and grape juice contains more impurities and this is what harms the bees. 

Insofar as protein sources go, I posted this to Bee-L:

... I tend to assume that keeping bees in a diverse area, free from most agriculture, is ideal for bee nutrition. Of course, this may not be the case at all, especially when weather conditions are not right for the flora. We have summers that are too wet or too dry, like everyone else, and to that we must add the (apparently) changing bloom periods due to climate change. 

Recent work by Dave de Jong, et al, shows that pollen may not be the best food for bees after all. It requires extensive processing on their part to make it digestible. Like termites, they require gut flora to convert indigestible material into something they can use. Obviously, if the protein in the food was predigested it could save them a lot of wear and tear and possibly lead to improved health, depending on the composition of the supplement.

Dave de Jong, et al reported "Overall, both Feed-Bee® and Bee-Pro® were superior ... to fresh bee collected pollen and therefore are confirmed to be adequate alternatives for feeding bees. Modern pollen substitutes can be superior to, or as good as, bee collected pollen, with the added advantages of lower cost and no risk of spreading bee diseases."

Both Feed-Bee® and Bee-Pro® out performed pollen (Table 1), giving
2.65 and 2.51 times more protein in the bee haemolymph, respectively,
than the sucrose controls, while the increase obtained with pollen was
1.76. This may seems a surprising result, but although pollen is the
natural protein source for honey bees, they normally consume it after
it has been fermented, in the form of â€œbee breadâ€� (Herbert and
Shimanuki, 1978). Bee bread is superior to bee collected pollen when
haemolymph protein values of bees fed on these materials are
compared (Cremonez et al., 1998). Though pollen is rich in protein
(Roulston and Cane, 2000), it is apparently not all fully available until
it has been processed by the bacteria in bee bread

Pollen substitutes increase honey bee haemolymph protein levels as much as or more than does pollen. Journal of Apicultural Research and Bee World 48(1): 34-37 (2009) © IBRA 2009

Follow-up to this post on Bee-L:

> "Recent work by Dave de Jong, et al, shows that pollen may not be the best food for bees after all. "

[comment]
> Surely 'best' is questionable here, unless we are happy to drive our bees toward complete reliance on us (domestication), and, the inevitable commensurate, the undermining of the health of any wild/feral bees they come into contact with. Many of us are not happy with that trend. 

[response]
I am sorry if you object, but my use of the term "best" means the best for their growth and development. You see, I simply will not fall into the natural/artificial dichotomy. You might suppose the most natural diet is the best. I don't agree one bit. It might be natural enough for people to eat berries and deer meat, but that doesn't make it an ideal diet. Thousands of years have gone into developing the human diet as it is now, and by virtue of the fact that people live longer and grow bigger, I suggest that it is a great improvement over deer meat and berries. 

By the same lights, a properly designed bee feed would contain all the elements for honey bee development and growth. No one type of pollen contains this and no locale has all the types of plants that would constitute the ideal natural diet. Just because bees eat pollen and nectar, it doesn't follow that all pollen and nectar is nutritious. We have already pointed out that a lot of it contains naturally occurring toxins. Life is a lot more complicated than natural=good, man-made=bad. Aesthetically speaking, you may prefer one over the other, but scientifically, your argument flops.

Peter


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> > My assumption. The more sugar water you feed the higher the chance the bees will have a more compromised immune system. As a consequence the bees will be less able to fight disease and need more medications. My assumptions only come from studying human populations and assuming that bees might suffer the same consequences from departing from their native foods. That is all.
> 
> I am sorry but underlying your assumption is an additional assumption that bee nutrition is even remotely similar to human nutrition, which it isn't. Besides, what native foods are you talking about, vis a vis humans? Acorns?


Good point. In the early days they had local flower mills. Once a week you would go to the local mill to buy your fresh ground flower. Wheat flower could be distinguished by color and taste by the experts as to the quality. You had to go each week because fresh ground whole wheat would not last and would go bad from oxidation of the fats. Basically quality whole food would spoil very quickly. Hard to ship fresh ground wheat across country because either it would go bad or the bugs would eat it. 
They solved the shipping and storing problem: 
When they discovered how to separate the bran (which is the outer cover of the wheat seed which is packed with Vitamins and phytonutrients) and the germ (which is fatty part of the wheat seed) from the starch (mostly glucose) we got white flower (starch). Basically they would bleach this white flower and it then had a long shelf life. The bran and germ were sold to the farmers for live stock. Farmers can not afford big health care bills so they had to use the highly dense nutrient part of the wheat to keep their animals healthy. So we are sold the empty almost pure starch and the pigs get the good stuff. Most of our processed food, pasta, bread is made from this cheap starch. Basically starch is nothing but many glucose molecules hooked together. 
Same thing is done with cane sugar. The nutrients are taken out and we are sold the pure sucrose. It is these known and unknown phytonutrients which are missing in our diet since we have begun the process of consuming tons of processed food. It is well documented when cultures begin to eat our processed foods they take on our rates of disease. Yes disease has been with us since the beginning of time but refined foods is a major contributor to our out of control increases of our MAJOR health problems. 

Bees are a much less complex system but I would think the same principles apply to them. I could not imagine bees would be any more able to cheat the laws of nature than humans can. They evolved over thousands of years consuming foods that are specific to bees. nectar and Pollen which are probably packed with a very nutrient dense phytochemical spectrum from the variation in plants they visit. Beekeepers are always promoting the superior quality of honey. I believe this to be true. Yes sugar water can support bees for a while. No doubt. But bees did not EVOLVE on sugar water. that is a new thing. How long would bees survive on glucose and pollen? I bet not as long as they would survive on honey and pollen. Why because it is missing hundreds of phytonutrients. Which tells me they follow the same principle as we do. They can live on sucrose water but logic tells me it is not a perfect food for bees and I wonder if they do not suffer consequences like a depressed immune system. thankfully bees only have to live on sugar water for a short time until the nectar is flowing. I think that is why it is so difficult to prove this concept true or false. 

I think the question is how high a precent of sugar water can bees consume before it begins to effect their ability to fight disease.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> How long would bees survive on glucose and pollen? I bet not as long as they would survive on honey and pollen.

Nobody is talking about glucose. It's sucrose. And I already provided info showing that they do better on pure sugar than honey. It's the impurities, folks. I have raised queen bees for sale, and there is only one thing I ever fed my bees: cane sugar. As soon as the nectar started to flow, I stopped. Why? Because sugar costs money, nectar is free. That doesn't mean its better! You can get free food from dumpsters behind the supermarket. Is it better? 

Honey bee nutrition is in no way simpler than human nutrition but it is also not similar. You might spend some time looking into it, before blurting out unfounded assumptions like natural is better, it has to be doesn't it, it's natural? So is carbon dioxide.

plb


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Beginnerhives...rule number 1...don't anthropomorphize your bees. they have nothing in common with humans. As far as white refined sugar, it is sucrose which also happens to be the main sugar ingredient in nectar. Honey is not the bees preferred food, nectar is. Honey is a dehydrated form of nectar put up for winter stores....it is bee survival food. Bees have an enzyme called "invertase" which allows them to break down the main sugar in nectar(sucrose)into the simpler glucose and fructose. They do the same with refined white sugar(sucrose). Unrefined sugar makes bees sick, gives them the runs.

Bees have carbohydrate needs and when there is a dearth of nectar, there is no better source than refined white sugar fed dry or as a 1:1 or 2:1 syrup.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

peterloringborst said:


> I don't know where you guys get this stuff.


If sugar water has no affect on the finished product then why don’t we all just feed our bees sugar water, pop, kool aid, etc. Everyone here can choose their sweetener. I choose less sugar water because bees did not have it 25 million years ago, and they made it this far with out it. This is why our world is so messed up. People are so greedy with making a buck they totally disregard the reality of the pure state of being.
I have just recently read a scientific research data sheet that showed why sugar was not good for bees .
I have been trying to find it again. When I find it I will Post it here. I am also a naturalist if that explains anything.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I am also a naturalist if that explains anything.[/QUOTE said:


> > A naturalistic methodology has its value, no doubt. I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.
> 
> – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52-53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Honey Bee Central said:


> All in all less sugar means healthier bees. Only feed when colonies are low on stores, or when doing splits with no field bees. I have read that if your bees don’t have to flex their wing muscles all winter the will require less honey. You know like a warmer winter where you use less gas, wood, or electric for heat. I heard allot of beeks saying their bees starved out with honey two inches from them. I belive in using a winter hive cover if your a snow bird. It keeps the hive temps warm enough on a cold winter day that bees are able to eat, clean, and unwind the stress of winter. Yes even on cloudy days according to my temp records on my daily observations and recordings. Ventilation is also another part of the combo for success.



ah NO.
On a normal winter in our area bees do not clean unless there is no wind a bright sunny day, and -10C, AND in a well sheltered area. And those bees most likely will not make it back. Getting closer to the freezing temp (0 to -5C) and the bees will fly and return to the hive. When the temps dip really low for an extended period of time, they can starve because the cluster is so tight to keep warm that they do not move. The only part of the hive that is warm is the part where the bees are. The rest of the hive is colder. 

And yes our bees are wrapped and insulated and have a good wind break


----------



## dnelson (May 19, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> North America did too have a native honeybee.
> 
> A roughly 14-million-year-old fossil unearthed in Nevada preserves what’s clearly a member of the honeybee, or Apis, genus, says Michael Engel of the University of Kansas in Lawrence.
> 
> [one bee, however, doesn't tell much of a story. we don't know if they even had colonies and stored honey]


This not necessarily aimed at peterloringborst "by the way, I have seen a photo of honeycomb fossils"

I don't want to pry here, but.:lookout:
Does anyone know how a fossil is made? I am just wondering because most believe that they are formed when something dies, lays around slowly getting covered in sediment until the item covered turns to rock. That's about it right? Millions of years ago, right? 

First Point,
Since everyone believes that fossils are made slowly over thousands or millions of years. How could a bee, that has no hard skeleton, become a fossil after laying in the mud or on the ground? Wouldn't it just decay, get squashed or eaten? Another thing, How about thousands of fossil jellyfish? 

Second point, 
Has anyone seen what happens to stone when it has been unearthed for say 150 years? carbon in the air will decompose the rock within that period of 150 years. (I'm not seeing how the fossils could make it for 100's of millions of years)

Third point,
With all this "evolving" over millions of years, how could it be that after millions of years, the photo of a fossil bee that I have, looks just like a present day Italian bee?

Forth point,
If everything is "evolving" which would mean to get more advanced, better, evolved, etc., why then, is everything getting more and more diseased, etc. to the point where bees, the environment, other animals, etc. can't survive without the help of people? Man, evolution sure worked well for the last 200 million years but the last 200 years something went horribly wrong right!?

fifth Point,
(Has nothing to do with bees) Why doesn't anyone know what happened to the "dinosaurs"? Scientist say there was a flood "of Biblical Proportions" on Mars, yet there is not a single drop (maybe just one) of water on that planet. Yet the earth is 2/3rds water and we don't believe that A global flood was possible here!
:scratch: Maybe the bible is more accurate than people give credit for. 

Could it be that "Dinosaurs" (the word "dinosaur" was not invented until the last 150-200 years ago) "Behemoths","Giant Lizards" or "Dragons" as ancient people would have called "Dinosaurs", bees, plants, fish, jellyfish, birds, etc. etc. could have died out in a global flood?


Back to bees
Right now everything taught about Biology is coming from the mindset that "evolution" is a fact. So the development and research is using that assumption to advance. If that assumption is wrong, than the way that bees are bred and genetically weeded out, than we are actually doing more harm to the bees than good. And before long, a honeybee, will be a very hard organism to keep alive.

"Evolution" is the belief that new information is added to the genes as something evolves. Evidence clearly shows that is the opposite of what is happening. Every living creature is losing genetic information with each offspring and mutations are multiplying at the same time. With that in mind, as Queens are bred to remove one bad gene, a good gene inadvertently can be removed as well.

People need to stop taking this millions of years thing blindly just because their professor at college said that's what happens, or because that's what they heard some "expert" say on PBS (who were probably taught by the same professor spoke of earlier) You need to look at the evidence yourselves, or at least ask questions and research with an open mind on both sides of the issue. Even Charles Darwin wrote in "The Origin of the Species" that you can only know what is true by studying both sides (which they don't teach you about in public school)

Nuff Said, going to sleep.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Honey Bee Central said:


> If sugar water has no affect on the finished product then why don’t we all just feed our bees sugar water, pop, kool aid, etc. Everyone here can choose their sweetener. I choose less sugar water because bees did not have it 25 million years ago, and they made it this far with out it. This is why our world is so messed up. People are so greedy with making a buck they totally disregard the reality of the pure state of being.
> I have just recently read a scientific research data sheet that showed why sugar was not good for bees .
> I have been trying to find it again. When I find it I will Post it here. I am also a naturalist if that explains anything.


sigh... HBC, you're not paying attention. If you had been, you would not have made such a comment as "pop, kool aid, etc." No one has said sugar syrup has not affect on the finished product. And what finished product are you talking about? Bees? Honey to be harvested? Even feral colonies die out, starvation, disease, whatever. When necessary we feed to keep them alive. Our mistake, their mistake, a fluke of the weather... whatever.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

honeyshack said:


> ah NO.


Well I am sorry but your Insulation is the problem. Takes to long for heat to penetrate. I am using a wrap material that I have never heard of anyone mention before. I have watched my bees carry the dead out at 0 degrees. I have a set up that stands alone, and have the records and witnesses to prove it. Sorry !
I will post Info before next winter or I might even sell a winter kit.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

StevenG said:


> sigh... HBC, you're not paying attention.
> Your right I don't know what led me down that road. Long day I guess.
> Yes we need to feed when necessary. How is that?


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Honey Bee Central said:


> Well I am sorry but your Insulation is the problem. Takes to long for heat to penetrate.


OK ya! Tell that to my bees when it is -40 with a wind chill bringing it down to -50 Celcius...for an extended period of time. When the daylight hours are from 9am-430pm (that would be our sun up to sun down).
We normaly live in temperatures during Dec/Jan/Feb that are at a minimun of -10 and a norm of -20 to -30 celcius. Then add the wind chill. Our snow arrives usually by halloween and hopefully takes a hike in April with a few good storms into May. 

Just for your information, the hive wraps just as much for keeping the heat in, as keeping the extreme cold and wind out

Your experience and your assumptions are based on your area and what you have experienced. Go out and live in a world outside your own bubble and then make your generalized assumptions. Work for a commercial beek and come back with some assumptions


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

honeyshack said:


> OK ya! Your experience and your assumptions are based on your area and what you have experienced. Go out and live in a world outside your own bubble and then make your generalized assumptions. Work for a commercial beek and come back with some assumptions


Please practice what you preach. You commented on my location. I assumed yours was similar. If I were you I think I would consider a building Like I have seen in some videos for your similar location
.


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Honey Bee Central said:


> Please practice what you preach. You commented on my location. I assumed yours was similar. If I were you I think I would consider a building Like I have seen in some videos for your similar location
> .


If you will note in my first post (post 45) in regards to your comment I said "in our area"!...meaning where i live! I already new where you were from, and it clearly states in my posts where i am from


----------



## alpha6 (May 12, 2008)

Honey Bee Central said:


> I have watched my bees carry the dead out at 0 degrees.


 :lpf:

Once bees leave the cluster they quickly cool down. The colder the temp the quicker this happens. I have never seen bees outside the cluster at below 20 degrees. It is certain death.


----------



## Brent Bean (Jun 30, 2005)

I have observed bees taking cleansing flights many times below 20 degrees. On occasion they can become quiet active. Bees flying out and bees returning to the hive. Sure didn’t look like certain death to me.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

alpha6 said:


> :lpf:
> 
> Once bees leave the cluster they quickly cool down. The colder the temp the quicker this happens. I have never seen bees outside the cluster at below 20 degrees. It is certain death.


Did you ever observe a Tracheal mite infested colony? Leaving the cluster in very cold conditions is one of the symptoms.


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

Brent Bean said:


> I have observed bees taking cleansing flights many times below 20 degrees.


Interesting, for me, I have never seen that. I have seen on very frosty mornings that if I go out and do something that causes bees to investigate that they quickly fly up towards me and eventually they circle downward into the grass, where I assumed that it was just too cold for them to fly.

They never return back to the hive entrance.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

CentralPAguy said:


> Interesting, for me,


I do observe that also. The temps I took under the hive wraps are very impressive. The material is perforated plastic cloth like. I use no insulation between hive and wrap and I have seen temps outside at -5 degrees with wind chills at about 20 below with bees moving around in the hive on sunny days. I also use the wide hole on the entrance reducer and I face it down so they don't need to crawl over it when dragging the dead ones out, and rain, snow, moisture don't dam up inside the opening. I also use a vented top box in conjunction with inter cover and foam insulation in the top of vented box. I still say this saves me from feeding allot of sugar water, because they are using less stores. I still don't believe it can be good for the bees to consume table sugar. Many I noticed will disagree but to each their own.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> LABORATORY COMPARISON OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, GRAPE SYRUP, HONEY,
> AND SUCROSE SYRUP AS MAINTENANCE FOOD FOR CAGED HONEY BEES
> Roy J. BARKER Yolanda LEHNER
> U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Bee
> ...


and how many beekeepers do you know that winter their worker bees in cages with no comb?

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> The idea that "most" beekeepers feed sugar is an error. Most don't.


i don't buy that for a minute. virtually every hobbyist in our county club feeds sugar. of the commercial operations i've visited in the last year or so (4), only one doesn't ever feed sugar. of the folks i've talked to that work for the large migratory operations (at least 3 separate people that worked for separate operations), they all feed HFCS.

can you name a beekeeping book that does not instruct the beekeeper to feed sugar? a website? 10 commercial beekeepers that don't feed sugar or hfcs? 5?

i'll go on record here (and i'm happy to apologize if i'm proven wrong) that the vast majority of beekeepers feed sugar or HFCS.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I am sorry, in the effort to be brief, I over simplified. Obviously, if hives are near starving beekeepers would be compelled to feed them. I meant as a general practice, mass feeding is not universally done. It's simply not cost effective. I don't know the percentage that do or don't feed, you're right!

Sure, some beekeepers skin their hives and try to make up with syrup. This is not good beekeeping practice, however. But the general public has this notion that all beekeepers steal their bees' honey and force them to eat white sugar and that's what's making them sick. This is the myth I was hoping to dispel.

I suggest hoarding extra supers of honey and if they come up short, give them that. That's what I do.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> The current trend in the news media is to suggest all of the bees problems are caused by beekeepers. This is utter foolishness.


really? clearly (since the following quotes are recent, and from you) _some_ percentage of the bee's problems ARE caused by beekeepers. if you claim it's not 100%, then what percentage would you guess?

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


> For example, in hive chemicals (miticides or pesticides) either upstream or downstream from the purchase point could cause queen supersedure and poor brood patterns, leading to lowered production. We don't really know all the factors that cause supersedure.


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


> Another presenter of note was Keith Deplane. He showed that coumaphos, fluvalinate and copper naphthalate caused significant increases in queen supersedure, which is a serious problem for beekeepers everywhere. *In fact, many of the presentations showed the harmful effects of in-hive chemicals.* A few years ago I contacted one of the researchers who was suggesting that in-hive chemicals might be causing hive failure, and I cautioned him against making such a claim without proof since it would lessen the public's sympathy for us beekeepers. *Well, they have proof now. This stuff makes bees sick.*


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Hi Dean!
Folks, Dean and I are old friends and have butted heads on many occasions. Thanks for keeping it real! I am a bit of an agent provocateur, I know. So is Dean, so we tend to push each other's buttons.

I would rather get people thinking than be right all the time. To me there are many more questions than answers. But to answer Dean's question, what percentage of the beekeeper's problems are caused by beekeepers?

Well, I did say: "We don't really know all the factors that cause supersedure". That would be my answer, we don't really know. 

There are some things you can control and some you can't. You can't control the weather but you can move your bees away from areas that are being sprayed.

You can't avoid mites, nosema, and viruses but you can avoid chemicals, especially: do not combine treatments! Apistan and coumaphos should not be used back to back (I wouldn't use these at all).

But back to the question: here's one for you. If you sample sick people versus well people you will find more medicinal substances in the sick people than the well ones. SO -- is it the medicine that's making them sick?

Pete B.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> I am sorry, in the effort to be brief, I over simplified. Obviously, if hives are near starving beekeepers would be compelled to feed them. I meant as a general practice, mass feeding is not universally done.


peter, this is like saying, "i'm not addicted to cigarettes, i just smoke every day".

despite what you say above, the vast majority of beekeepers feed the vast majority of their bees in any given calendar year. when those same beekeepers are harvesting honey most calendar years, then we have a near universal feeding _and_ honey being harvested.

deknow


----------



## Elwood (Apr 8, 2009)

Beginnerhives,

You have shown courage to question the norm and you may have ruffled a few feathers. Of course no one wants to be blamed for the problems facing our favorite insect and some people might take this suggestion personally, but is also seems every group of humans seem to generate a few dominant types who feel it is their job to keep the "strays" in line. Without interested people like yourself the art would suffer. I have seldom seen a reaction like this within this forum. Maybe we have been cooped up too long and are getting a little cranky. I for one think this is a place where people should feel safe to voice their questions and thoughts, at least with some decorum, which you have shown. As for those who purport to be scientists, I say we will all be dead and gone before science gets around to explaining honey bees. It can't even tell us how they fly. It is hard to argue with evolution though. Millions of years of living off the food provided by nature has to prove that the natural diet is the correct diet. However that is not to say a little sugar at the right time is a bad thing. Balance is most likely the correct course.

This statement is interesting,"Just in the last few years researchers have discovered over 5000 phytochemicals plants make that were unknown to us before."

In all the discussion you have provoked, we seem to be skipping over this word, phytochemicals. What are they and how well are they understood?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> If you sample sick people versus well people you will find more medicinal substances in the sick people than the well ones. SO -- is it the medicine that's making them sick?


well, first you have to define healthy and sick.

generally, in a human (where individuals are valued to the point where cost and inconvenience are secondary to increasing life span), one might look at "under their current treatment regimin, how long is this person likely live relative to the average lifespan" and perhaps, "what is their quality of life"? under this criteria, taking insulin every day, or having a colostomy bag is down in the noise...we would consider these people (if stable with no further impending issues) as relatively healthy. of course an insurance company might have a different viewpoint. they might consider the above people "healthy" with the exception of their pre-exisiting conditions...which they might not cover (which they would for a "fully healthy human" for the same premium). so, even humans don't necessarily call these people healthy...it depends what your perspective is....if you are living that life, you would consider yourself healthy. if you are paying for the drugs/treatments, you would not.

but if you were going to look at livestock (let's say chickens), would you consider a chicken with a colostomy bag healthy? one that needs daily medication? would these chickens be eliminated from your breeding program? are they "healthy"? are they as healthy as chickens with the same general health but without the colostomy bag or insulin?

deknow


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

I just found this and thought I would share. A pesticide that could be dangerously toxic to America’s honey bees must be pulled from store shelves as a result of a suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council http://abfnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=73


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

As a novice beekeeper and fairly new member, I am going to proceed with caution, but I would like to propose an analogy to food production for humans in our modern world with sugar production. Before large agribusiness practices, beef and dairy cattle, chickens and pigs, etc, grazed on grass, or rooted for their dietary needs, often supplemented by leftovers on the farm, that were similarly raised WITHOUT harmful pesticides or fertilizers. Now, the beef we eat is raised on #2 grain corn, grown with petrochemicals, and highly processed to fatten the cattle and pigs CHEAPLY and faster. Because the cow is a ruminent animal, meant to eat grass, and turn this solar source into an edible product for us to eat, the animal is suseptible to diseases, and is also given hormones and is also given doses of antibiotics and hormones. The end result is a society that may have a life span lower than a previous generation. 
Now, what is sugar fertilized with? Processed with? What insectides, pesticides and chemicals present in sugar? What are the bees missing in their diet and what is being added that may harm them? I would also question what is found in pollen supplements. Yes, bees forage in a damaged environment, but what are we inadvertantly adding to the hive?


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks for the posts. 
I have gained a lot of insight to bees from all the posts. 

you all seem to agree that nectar is the best food source for bees given a good diverse plant population. 

The question really remains is honey or sucrose water the best source of food for the over wintering bee? Some good points have been raised. Bees seem to burn cleaner so to speak when consuming sucrose over honey. I think the argument was because of the impurities in the honey. Good point. But we need to consider these might not be impurities but nutrients the bee needs to over winter. May make them poop a lot but that is just a necessary evil. 
Bees live longer on sugar water than honey. So because of this people assume the sugar water is better than honey. Good point but it may not hold water. :doh:
Honey is only consumed for the winter months. I argue honey is the perfect food for winter and trying to feed bees on it longer when they should transition into nectar is probably not a good idea. Because of honey's special properties for ever wintering it does make sense long term feeding might be detrimental to the bees. That might make the bees WANT to get outside the hive and collect nectar ASAP. Evolution would support honey is better than pure sugar. Under summer conditions honey might be toxic to bees or just not support them as well as sucrose. So they would live longer on sucrose water. I agree. 

Another take: From what I have learned so far. (thank by the way)
Honey is not the perfect food for bees nectar is. Got it. 
But for overwintering is honey a more perfect food for bees than sucrose water? 
Yes bees evolved on honey but could they have been mistaken and really only needed sucrose and water. I am not convinced it is YET.

The fact bees live longer on sucrose than honey might make sense in the context of hot weather. Was that the conditions were the study was done? To me this isolated research finding would not demonstrate which is the best food for winter. How long did they live on honey? Was it under winter or summer conditions? I would think what ever is in honey is perfectly designed for the bee physiology of overwintering. The fact they poop a lot consuming honey does not mean it is not as good as sugar water. Living on sucrose for a long time does not prove the bee population would survive on the nutrient poor substance for many generations. it also does not mean it would support bees over winter. That is how we were fooled so long with human devitalized food. It takes sometime a few generations to see the impact. 

Now is when I get to argue with myself: :doh: I like these animations. 
But we do not feed sugar water all winter. Just at the end and beginning of the nectar season. Since it burns so clean it is probably not doing any harm to the bees. Plus it might cause a cleansing reaction before the nectar flow which is a good thing. Because of that there should not be any problem feeding sugar water because they have the honey for the hard winter. Good point but: 

Well, there may be chemicals in honey that transition the bee into the winter phase because it might change the bees physiology. When nectar flow stops the bee begins to eat the honey. Maybe the honey has properties which prepare the bee for winter. If we keep feeding sugar water the bee does not adapt soon enough. Probably does not effect them. 
Feeding sugar water in the spring might have a greater impact. In the spring before nectar flow starts if you feed them sugar water devoid of all the nutrients (bee vitamin and minerals) that might depress their immune system for a few months and when they finally start flying to collect nectar they are more susceptible to infections and picking up other bad diseases. Remember in the spring the diseases might be in full swing looking for a pack of immune depressed bees. 

but if they keep eating honey they would continue to consume the complex matrix of nutrition that is specific to bees. After all they have evolved on this great food. So they would then have the a stronger immune system when leaving the hive. 

Bees are probably strong enough to consume some sugar water for survival but it is probably not ideal. The fact bees can adapt to this less than ideal situation just shows how hardy they are. But if we want the best healthiest bees I doubt sugar water contributes the the long term health of the bee even though they can survive on it. 

Next question: I am sure we only know a fraction of what is truly in honey but does anyone have a concise place that describes the KNOWN steps and chemicals in honey. Someone suggested there is some fermentation that takes place as part of honey production. I am very interested in this information. Also, I think honey is promoted to had antibacterial properties. I would think this would be important for overwintering. Any have any info on that. Thank in advance.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

http://www.prohoneyandhealth.com/UserFiles/Image/Symposium Report.pdf



> One notable comment from their presentation was in regard to the care and feeding of bees themselves. Lactobacilli, bacteria that deliver protective and beneficial benefits to both bees and humans, were not found in bee’s honey stomach during the winter months when the bees under investigation were fed sucrose, indicating that certain bee-feeding practices may have dangerous and unwanted affects on bees.


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

How about making the title:
Is high-fructose corn syrup causing our disease problems? 

IMO this stuff isn't good for anyone including humans.
It's in everything because its cheap to produce.
The beet sugar industry has been tainted with GMO beets, which leaves
only cane sugar? or HONEY untouched.

Could this be adding one more stress to our busy little friends.?

http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Double-Danger-of-High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup.html

+03F +58.2 Inside top
(temp inside even throughout the day lately, so I believe they have started with brood rearing) 
BM


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I would think what ever is in honey is perfectly designed for the bee physiology of overwintering. 

Of course, one would think that. But you are making an assumption and working forward from that. The assumption is that what is natural must be better than what is man-made. From an aesthetic point of view, I tend to agree. I prefer forests to cities, the ocean to a swimming pool.

But from a scientific point of view, it doesn't hold up. What is natural food for people? Acorns? You won't last long on a diet of acorns and bees can't make it on sugar -- or honey -- alone. The sugar or honey is just a source of energy. Most people realize that they couldn't live on rice alone, whether it's white or whole grain. 

A well rounded diet is essential for any organism. Even yeast require nutrients and can't thrive on pure sugar or honey (see Roger Morse's books on making Mead)

We can study bee nutrition and work out scientifically what they require. Then you have two options: find a place where the bees get everything they require from the environment -- or -- figure out what it is they are not getting and try to supply that. 

Oh yes, number three is to kick back and let them fend for themselves. That's OK too, why not? But to try to hold up some ideal "natural" and measure everything by that yardstick is like picking your soul mate because he or she is "pretty". 

Pete

PS. You're only pretty as you feel inside.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

brushmouth said:


> or HONEY untouched.


do you really think honey is "untouched"? given that near 100% of beekeepers treat with some combination of organic acids, organophosphates, pyrethoids, essential oils, and illegal offlabel treatments...and that most bees are fed sugar and/or hfcs, what makes you think honey is "untouched"?

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Dean write:
> most bees are fed sugar and/or hfcs

Really Dean, you criticized me for saying most beekeepers this and that, but really -- how do you figure "most bees are fed sugar" ?? What on earth is that based upon ??

Pete


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

deknow said:


> do you really think honey is "untouched"? given that near 100% of beekeepers treat with some combination of organic acids, organophosphates, pyrethoids, essential oils, and illegal offlabel treatments...and that most bees are fed sugar and/or hfcs, what makes you think honey is "untouched"?
> 
> deknow


Mine is !

BM


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If you sample sick people versus well people you will find more medicinal substances in the sick people than the well ones. SO -- is it the medicine that's making them sick?

More than likely. When you look at the rate of PROVEN malpractice and the likelyhood of that killing you, and the amount of times that tested and proven "safe" pharmaceuticals are later proven to cause worse things than they were treating, I'd say it probably is the medicine that is making them sick. It upsets the entire balance of their body. The typical western medicines version of solving a problem is to force the body to do the opposite of what it was trying to do to maintain equilibrium. The body, of course, typically responds by doing more of what it was doing before... creating a push/pull situation that makes it more and more difficult to stop taking the medicine because the body has been conditioned to push back the other way.

>Bees live longer on sugar water than honey. 

Actually the only study I know of on the subject concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between honey and sucrose and it was 1000 bees in a cage for a month and counting dead bees. I don't see how anything about it is "statistically significant".


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Beginnerhives....I don't think any of us feed sugar syrup or HFCS or pollen patties or pollen sub year around. Feeding suplements is a stop gap measure to get through a dearth of pollen or nectar or to get bees ready for winter or to help them build up in the spring. Bees don't cap sugar water. They can survive on it during the winter if it is warm enough for them to take it and they can dehydrate it down to honey and cap it for later use.

I think what the discussion on this post is proving is how little we really do know about honey bee nutrition.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> > the only study I know of on the subject


I mentioned this one yesterday: Roy J. BARKER Yolanda LEHNER Apidologie 9 (1978) 111-116


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

ACBEES said:


> I think what the discussion on this post is proving is how little we really do know about honey bee nutrition.


Well, there is a ton of good information available, and you don't have to look very far to find it. 

"Honey Bee Nutrition And Supplemental Feeding" By: L.N. Standifer (From Beekeeping in the United States)

GO TO:
http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/bkCD/HBBiology/nutrition_supplements.htm

In fact, GO TO: http://maarec.cas.psu.edu for all your beekeeping info needs! This is the best source on the internet, hands down.

Pete


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

I hold to the fact,anything that is not natural is not good. I don't feed them unless i have too,or use hive treatments and we are changing to all foundationless. I say if you weaken the hive in any way, then your in trouble. I find if you keep a strong hive,they fight off anything. Weaking the hive in doing two or three wrong things could cause you to lose the hive.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Cordovan Italian Bee said:


> I hold to the fact,anything that is not natural is not good. I find if you keep a strong hive, they fight off anything.


Hmm. Like bears? Tell that to my strong hive, the frames are scattered all over the woods. Oh, by the way, it's perfectly natural for bears to trash hives, they've been doing that for millions of years!

Pete


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Really Dean, you criticized me for saying most beekeepers this and that, but really -- how do you figure "most bees are fed sugar" ?? What on earth is that based upon ??


as i said, virtually all of the hobbyist beekeepers i know (i know hundreds in person, probably thousands online) feed sugar or hfcs.

in the last year or so, i've visited 4 commercial operations (mostly with a bent towards "natural" or "organic" however you want to define the terms), and only 1 doesn't ever feed sugar.

i read beekeeping books and websites...all of them tell you to feed sugar.

"experts" on all manner of beekeeping lists tell new and experienced beekeepers alike that sugar is a better winter food than honey.

i read beekeeping magazines with full page ads with the shiny HFCS truck that can drive right up to your apiary.

i've spoken to at least 4 people that worked (in the field) for commercial, migratory beekeepers...all said the bees are heavily fed HFCS, and 3 of them stated clearly that the HFCS was extracted from the comb and sold as "honey".

can you cite 5 authorities on beekeeping that tell you not to feed sugar or hfcs?

deknow


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beginnerhives said:


> Barry. I had trouble with the link. Preparing Colony for Winter


Sorry, I fixed it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Dean
I never said that most beekeepers NEVER feed sugar. I thought I explained that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with feeding sugar to hives AS NEEDED, and I certainly don't think that "sugar water is causing our disease problems."

My point was that most of the time, most of the bees in the world are living on a diet of nectar, pollen and honey. Were this not the case, we wouldn't be beekeepers, wouldn't have a discussion group, would be raising chinchillas or something else. 

What I question is the myth that the media promotes that honey bees are feed lotted like cattle. Even cattle are free ranged to a large extent. Doesn't mean they're all free-ranged, or mostly free-ranged, or free-ranged somewhat. 

Point is, I don't know any more than you do what percentage of the diet of the honey bees of the USA is sugar. I don't have any idea how to begin to calculate that, and I don't think it matters in any case. Unless you want to promote free-range honey. Which, by the way, is a terrific idea (why didn't I think of that?)

You can't make decent honey if you are in an area where bees can't thrive. If you are in an area where bees can't thrive, maybe beekeeping is not indicated. You can't go fishing in a hay field. But alas, I have spent more on this than I intended. I concede.

Pete


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2010)

After some thought and research and all that has been said here, I would have to conclude, sugar water don't hurt bees, but it don't give them the other chemicals taken up by the bee from plants nectar either. So I would think the bee that gets fed more sugar would be more prone to disease.


----------



## denny (Aug 2, 2006)

I attended the Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference this past July in Leominster,Ma., which was put together by deknow (Dean) and his wife of Golden Rule Honey.
The feeding of sugar syrup and its possible detrimental effects was mentioned by at least two of the speakers, both Dean and Michael Bush.
According to my notes , it was said that the PH of sugar syrup is around 6, and the PH of honey is around 4, and that most of the honeybee's detrimental bacteria / pathogens thrive in a PH of around 6,.....thus the feeding of sugar syrup would increase the bee's susceptibility to disease.
Perhaps Michael Bush or Dean could speak to this some more.......thanks.


----------



## Cordovan Italian Bee (Oct 27, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Hmm. Like bears?


I listed things that man does, that is un natural.Were talking about feeding bees. OH,maybe you didn't read.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> it was said that the PH of sugar syrup is around 6, and the PH of honey is around 4, and that most of the honeybee's detrimental bacteria / pathogens thrive in a PH of around 6,.....thus the feeding of sugar syrup would increase the bee's susceptibility to disease.

I am sorry, but there is simply no way to get from point A to point B. The only conclusion you can reach is that this would make an interesting study. Do you suppose that beneficial bacteria prefer a different pH to what harmful ones do? Now, just why would that be?

You guys are trying to make a case for natural vs man made and it leads nowhere. No wait, where it leads to is that bees lived millions of years without us and we have no right to keep them for our pecuniary motives. If they are sick and dying, it's just nature getting rid of the unfit. 

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

What you said:
>I hold to the fact, anything that is not natural is not good. 

Now, how is that a "fact"?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Dean
> I never said that most beekeepers NEVER feed sugar...
> My point was that most of the time, most of the bees in the world are living on a diet of nectar, pollen and honey. ...
> Point is, I don't know any more than you do what percentage of the diet of the honey bees of the USA is sugar.


peter, i really have a hard time having a discussion like this.

i posted:


> despite what you say above, the *vast majority of beekeepers feed the vast majority of their bees in any given calendar year*.


you quoted a very small part of that to respond to:


> "most bees are fed sugar"


and you replied that:


> I never said that most beekeepers NEVER feed sugar.


i maintain that in any given calendar year, most bees are fed sugar or hfcs. this may be considered an "emergency measure" by some, but if it's used nearly every year, it isn't reasonable to consider it so.

you started out by saying that:


> The idea that "most" beekeepers feed sugar is an error. Most don't.


the truth is (whether you want to admit it or not), is that MOST BEEKEEPERS feed sugar. how you got from "The idea that "most" beekeepers feed sugar is in error" to "I never said that most beekeepers NEVER feed sugar...
My point was that most of the time, most of the bees in the world are living on a diet of nectar, pollen and honey. ..."

...i just don't get it. ok, so most months of the year, most beekeepers aren't feeding sugar. most of the diet of most beehives is mostly nectar. but, most bees are fed sugar most years (unless you want to argue about individual bees).

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Dean
I said I concede


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> The only conclusion you can reach is that this would make an interesting study. Do you suppose that beneficial bacteria prefer a different pH to what harmful ones do? Now, just why would that be?


yes, it was an interesting study:
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/17780/1/IND44075806.pdf



> Select colony-associated fungi (bee isolates), Absidia sp., Ascosphaera apis, Aspergillus flavus, Fusarium sp., Penicillium glabrum, Mucor sp., showeda 40% reduction in radial growth rate with formic acid, a 28% reduction with oxalic acid, and a 15% reduction with fructose and highfructose corn syrup (HFCS) when grown on supplemented media at 30°C to mimic colony conditions. No effect, suppressing orpromoting growth, was observed on other colony-associated fungi, Alternaria sp., Aspergillus niger, Cladosporium cladosporioides, Rhizopus sp.and Trichoderma sp., except 0.1 M formic and oxalic acid. Sensitivity to these compounds did not correlate with the fungus species being aslow- or fast-grower and sensitivity to one compound did not translate to sensitivity to another compound. Given the competitive natureand high-sporing (conidia) activity of these species, our results suggest that alteration or disruption of the colony\mycoflora can occur byuse of these compounds. This may indicate a possible link between compound application and incidence of bee fungal pathogens.


and




> Implications from this study are that applications of formic andoxalic acid and HFCS, alone or in combination, have the potentialof altering the mycoflora balance in the bee colony. Conceivably,enhancing or promoting distribution of Alternaria sp., Aspergillusniger, Cladosporium c/adosporioides, Rhizo pus sp. and especiallymyco parasitic Trichoderma sp. could suppress growth of sensitivefungi and allow for expansion of non-sensitive fungi. Given thehigh potential for spread of these colony fungi attributed to theirheavy spore-producing capacity and competitive interactions,some of the fungi could expand quickly in an unoccupied niche(Jennings and Lysek, 1999). Such differential growth rates would trigger a dynamic shift in fungal composition and organization inthe process, especially overtime, which could lead to promotingthe occurrence of either beneficial fungi or fungal pathogens.
> A healthy bee colony can regulate and control adverseconditions in the hive environment by cleaning and raising hivetemperatures to kill pathogens (Starks et of, 2000). If virusinfection or parasitic mites compromise a colony, it may lose theability to keep brood nest temperatures high enough to keeppathogens from gaining a foothold in the colony. Evidencedemonstrating that suppression of the growth rate of select fungiin the bee colony environment implies that altering or disruptingthe composition of the colony mycoflora by treatments withformic acid and oxalic acid and HFCS could occur.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Elwood said:


> Beginnerhives,
> 
> You have shown courage to question the norm and you may have ruffled a few feathers. Of course no one wants to be blamed for the problems facing our favorite insect and some people might take this suggestion personally, but is also seems every group of humans seem to generate a few dominant types who feel it is their job to keep the "strays" in line. Without interested people like yourself the art would suffer. I have seldom seen a reaction like this within this forum. Maybe we have been cooped up too long and are getting a little cranky. I for one think this is a place where people should feel safe to voice their questions and thoughts, at least with some decorum, which you have shown. As for those who purport to be scientists, I say we will all be dead and gone before science gets around to explaining honey bees. It can't even tell us how they fly. It is hard to argue with evolution though. Millions of years of living off the food provided by nature has to prove that the natural diet is the correct diet. However that is not to say a little sugar at the right time is a bad thing. Balance is most likely the correct course.
> 
> ...


Sorry I will try to explain: This post is the best support for honey over sugar water 

What are phytochemicals: 

http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/plants.html

After you click you have to type in carrot in the space. then move to the next screen and you will see all of the phytochemicals


Click on this link above and you will see just how many phytochemicals are in just a Carrot. It is amazing. Probably over 300. That applies to humans but bees do not visit carrots so I am posting buckwheat:

http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/plants.html

Click on the above link and type in Buckwheat. Move to the page with all the phytonutrients
Think of how many of these chemcials make it into the nectar of the plant? That is what I would research. And how many are beneficial to the bee in ways we have not even begun to explore this is why we should assume the unknown over what we know. Add to that buckwheat is not the only plant bees visit. They probably get hundreds of chemicals from a variety of plants. Because of this diversity I consider honey to be mother natures perfect food. It is also funamental to why I Assume honey is superior to sugar water. 

How did scientists miss the importance of the phytochemicals in humans and maybe BEES? 

Here is the deal. Before about the 1930's the vitamins were discovered.
Vitamins A-E and the minerals. They ASSUMED they had discovered all the active principles responsible for human nutrition when they isolated these factors. So they synthetically fortified all our devitalized food with synthetic vitamins. That is why when you are in the store our labels look like a list of Vitamins and minerals on bread for example. 
They assumed these few nutrients were the only chemicals in food necessary for human nutrition. BIG MISTAKE

carbs, fats, protein, vitamins and minerals were all they focused on for years. Kind of like the stuff fortified for Bee food. 
They thought they had discovered the only chemicals in food responsible for their health properties... Well here was their mistake. 

They ASSUMED all the other phytochemicals were inert and not necessary for human nutrition. How did they make this BIG mistake: 

This is a gross oversimplification but it will get the point across: Lets say they start with 30 compounds in food. Their goal was to discover which were essential in humans. They one by one left them out of the food and maybe compound 6 created a disease when left out. If they put the compound back and cured the disease they assumed that compound was necessary. Good thinking. their mistake was to consider all of the other ones useless. Bad thinking. We are not just learning the benefits of Whole Food due to its combinations of hundreds of known and unknown phytochemicals in each plant. Eating a variety of foods give us a variety of these phytochemicals. they estimate we know about 5000 so far but the majority of them have not even been discovered so far. Science is beginning to see the known vitamins are only a fraction of the chemicals in foods that supports total health. Yes we can live on carbs, fats protein and a few vitamins but it is far from ideal for humans and probably bees as well. 

How does this relate to bees: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simple. Bees visit hundreds of flowers. Each flower produces chemicals like scents and other good stuff known and unknown. Bees collects the nectar full of these compounds and processes the nectar and stores it as honey. So the honey consists of hundreds of compounds other than SUCROSE and WATER. These compounds are probably of incredible benefit to the bee as well as us. To say that sugar water is the same as honey is a very bold statement considering all that has been discussed so far. 

I am a beekeeper. I support the bees and provide them with shelter. I try to give them an environment which best supports their own health. For that service I plan to extract a little honey. The hundreds of phytonutrients and known and unknown factors in that honey support my heath so I can tend to the bees. 
:gh:


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> > it was said that the PH of sugar syrup is around 6, and the PH of honey is around 4, and that most of the honeybee's detrimental bacteria / pathogens thrive in a PH of around 6,.....thus the feeding of sugar syrup would increase the bee's susceptibility to disease.
> 
> I am sorry, but there is simply no way to get from point A to point B. The only conclusion you can reach is that this would make an interesting study. Do you suppose that beneficial bacteria prefer a different pH to what harmful ones do? Now, just why would that be?
> 
> ...


I would agree with the first poster because in humans it is the same. The harmful bacteria thrives in a higher pH. A health human colon is a bit on the acid side to promote the beneficial bacteria. That is part of the reason why fermented foods are so good for humans. I assume bees ferment stuff in their GI tracts as well. pH has to be right. I know humans are different than bees but it is worth considering. I wonder if bees have bad gas like humans do in a high pH environment. Bee gas could really wreck the social parties in the hive. :doh: Had to lighten it up a bit. :applause:


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Each flower produces chemicals like scents and other good stuff known and unknown.

First, you simply cannot refer to unknown stuff in your argument. We cannot possible know the effect of unknown stuff. Second, it is widely known that not all substances produced by flower is good stuff. There are many harmful substances being produced by flowers that wind up in the nectar and pollen. Some of these appear to be defenses produced by the plant to deter or kill anything that would try to eat the plant (insects, etc.) Others appear to be tailored to deter one or another creature and preferentially attract others. If you think all flowers are equally beneficial to the birds and bees, you are mistaken. There are many examples of nectar and pollen that is toxic to bees and there are honeys that are toxic to humans. It simply is not a case of nature is all sweetness and love. There is a battle going on between God's creatures and poisons are a part of the plan.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> >
> You guys are trying to make a case for natural vs man made and it leads nowhere. No wait, where it leads to is that bees lived millions of years without us and we have no right to keep them for our pecuniary motives. If they are sick and dying, it's just nature getting rid of the unfit.



I question whether it still 'just nature getting rid of the unfit' *if* bees are sick and dying en masse due to widespread poisoning of their food supplies and their environment? (just saying _what if_ that was the cause) For me one of the questions is: just how high can the levels of pesticides, herbicides, and medications get before bees begin to succumb through sickness, brood disfunction, and death? I think it's safe to assume there must be an upper limit above which all bees will die off. Or is it just part of a 'natural process' for bees to be poisoned and die?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beginnerhives said:


> The harmful bacteria thrives in a higher pH.


...and how does one distiguish a harmful microbe from a beneficial one? you can't, as the setting has everything to do with it. as michael bush points out, staph bacteria on your skin is beneficial (as it prevents fungal infections), but in your blood it's harmful.

deknow


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

opcorn: man I tell you, this has been some thread to follow, and try to learn from. In some respects it has been rather intimidating, as some of you folks are a lot more scientific than me. The beauty of the discussion is that it gets us to think, to actually think about what we do to/for/with our bees and why. And we have to recall that all beekeeping is LOCAL. There are certain general "truths" applicable to every situation, but even those have to be adapted to particular locales. 

Me? I want the healthiest bees I can have. I want to collect the "rent", but I don't want to have to feed. But when the fall flow fails, I have to feed. Some food is better than other types, and that's a value judgement involving bee health and our own economics. We each have to decide what's best for our situation. Hopefully we'll do what's best for the bees...because that can also be best for us. 

So much has changed in beekeeping in the last ten to fifteen years. Perhaps the reason why this is so painful for us, and tends to so many "animated discussions" is that we're moving from the "thesis" phase of addressing our myriad problems, into the "antithesis" phase... At some point, we'll come to the "synthesis" where answers become more clear. But we're not there yet. We'll get there, but the getting there is going to be...interesting? painful? frustrating? exasperating? 

Thanks to all who are trying to find constructive solutions to difficult problems. :applause:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## denny (Aug 2, 2006)

deknow....thanks for posting the link to that research article ....."Suppression of growth rate of colony-associated fungi by HFCS feeding supplement, formic acid, and oxalic acid". I had been wondering where you got the info concerning the effects of PH levels on the colony microflora. Interesting read.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

denny,

michael had told me about the ph differences long before ramona found that study. he had a different set of data that was specific to the ph...my recolection is that it related to growing these organisms in the lab.

but don't forget to listen to michael on this subject! ph is only one (probably the easiest to measure) difference between honey and sugar or hfcs.

deknow


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> > Each flower produces chemicals like scents and other good stuff known and unknown.
> 
> First, you simply cannot refer to unknown stuff in your argument. We cannot possible know the effect of unknown stuff. Second, it is widely known that not all substances produced by flower is good stuff. There are many harmful substances being produced by flowers that wind up in the nectar and pollen. Some of these appear to be defenses produced by the plant to deter or kill anything that would try to eat the plant (insects, etc.) Others appear to be tailored to deter one or another creature and preferentially attract others. If you think all flowers are equally beneficial to the birds and bees, you are mistaken. There are many examples of nectar and pollen that is toxic to bees and there are honeys that are toxic to humans. It simply is not a case of nature is all sweetness and love. There is a battle going on between God's creatures and poisons are a part of the plan.


Well said. I think you have made many great points. I fully agree with all of your comments. It is an amazing system if you really think about it. 

I attribute the bee wisdom to know which flower and when to visit as to which nectar to gather. I would not bee surprised if they knew that a certain disease was in the hive and they plan their day according to which plants they might visit to address that condition. 

Sometimes I listen to the bees. This is the conversation they had last spring. 

"Ya know bob can you go to frame 5 where we stored all those plant compounds we harvested last fall that kills fungus and bring some over to me. I think I have a fungus infection, I feel really bad" 

"Bill, I would love to do that for your but we lost it to that magician that visited the hive last fall."

"what do you mean by magician?"

"Well this guy in a white suit came by and POOF after a lot of smoke Frames 1-9 were gone. Best trick I have ever seen. I was so drunk I did not even seem to care."

"Well what am I suppose to do about my fungus infection?"

"the magician came back and left us some great life sustaining sugar water"

"OK I will try that. I seem to be worse now. I think that stuff is making the fungus grow even more."

" do not worry the same magician will come by with some great drugs and give us a dose. I hope you live long enough to get the drug."

"But first the infection has to spread throughout the hive so that magician will even know there is a problem."

"I really wish they would leave ALL of our honey and take the honey they need about 1 month after nectar flow begins. That way we would have either honey or nectar to support the health of our hive" 

Just thought I would have a little fun. The point is there are probably many unknown principles that exist in honey that we have not even begun to discover. These bees depend on it.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beginnerhives said:


> I would not bee surprised if they knew that a certain disease was in the hive and they plan their day according to which plants they might visit to address that condition.


i don't know of any study that shows that, but certainly some nectars/pollens have different attributes.

stark showed, however, that when chalkbrood is introduced into a hive, the bees raise the temperature..and when the chalkbrood is removed, they lower it back down.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

beginnerhives said:


> I attribute the bee wisdom to know which flower and when to visit as to which nectar to gather.


Except that they gather poisonous honey and die (Buckeye). Also honey that is poisonous to people:

The honey, produced from the nectar of a particular rhododendron species, has long been linked to food poisoning, with most of the documented cases seen in Turkey. In the country's Black Sea region, mad honey is used as an alternative medicine for gastrointestinal problems and, more often, as a sexual stimulant.

Reporting in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, Turkish researchers document 21 cases of mad-honey poisoning that passed through their ER over five years. Nearly all patients were middle-aged and older men — a demographic that, according to local beekeepers, usually buys mad honey as a way to enhance sexual performance.

The problem with mad honey is its concentration of substances called grayanotoxins, some of which can cause low blood pressure, slowed heart rate, vomiting, dizziness and fainting.

In Turkey, most mad-honey buyers know they are getting a "special honey," and discuss possible side effects with the beekeepers selling it, according to Dr. Ahmet Demircan, of Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, the lead researcher on the new study.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Excerpts:

Bees are regularly confronted with the defence chemistry of plants. Are the bees able to detect and to avoid nectars and pollen rich in allelochemicals? if not, do toxic effects result? 

A number of substances proved to be unpleasant and even toxic to honeybees. A correlation between food rejection and toxicity could not be found, however. Food rejection often sets in at concentrations that exceed the respective LD50, i.e. which are already toxic. Naturally occurring bee mortality due to nectars or pollen that contain toxic substances, has been observed mainly when environmental circumstances do not provide alternative food sources. 

Thus, bees do not seem to be highly adapted to the plants' defence chemistry. It seems that the relationship between flowers and flower visitors, especially pollinators, is more complex with regard to plant allelochemicals as was generally assumed.

Attraction, deterrence or intoxication of bees (Apis mellifera) by plant allelochemicals
Andreas Detzel and Michael Wink -- Chemoecology 4/1:8-18 (1993)


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Pete, thanks for the link to MAAREC. :thumbsup: I'm diving into all the info. Successful beekeeping is a huge exercise in continuing education.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Has anyone tried this? Never extract any honey in the fall but leave it ALL for the BEES.
> 
> Sure but most of it is so crystallized in the spring that you can't extract it. However there are many who believe that honey is better for bees than sugar and try to leave them enough for winter. There is research to show that nectar and honey promote "good" microbes in the gut of the bees that displaces things like AFB and Nosema and that these quickly die out when feeding sugar. This probably has more to do with pH and micronutrients than it does with how refined the sugar is. Research shows that unrefined sugar is hard on bees.
> 
> ...


I finally got to read links. Great stuff. I am just getting started but I want to follow in your foot steps. It seems like a no brainer. I am very interested in the small cell foundation. I hope you do not mind but I stole this from your web site becaue I think it makes some great points. 


Natural Food
It's quite simply less work to use natural food. If I don't feed pollen substitute in the spring then I don't have to make patties etc. If I don't feed syrup, I don't have to buy sugar, I don't have to make syrup, I don't have to drive to the yards and I don't have to feed it. If I leave them honey to winter on, there is less honey for me to pull, haul home, extract, haul back empty to get cleaned up and then pull off to store, make syrup, drive to the yards to feed it etc. This is less work all the way around. Even if you don't believe that honey is more nutritious to bees (although I have to wonder why you want to produce honey if you think there is no difference between honey and sugar). It is definitely less work to leave it. Even if you believe that the difference in pH is irrelevant (which I seriously doubt), it's less work than making syrup and feeding syrup. Even if you are obsessed with the difference in price ($0.40 per pound for sugar vs. some variable price from say $0.90 to $2.00 pound for honey) by the time you extract the honey, buy the sugar, make they syrup, haul it to the yards, feed it, go back and pull the feeders etc. do you honestly think you came out that far ahead? It's not just a $0.60 a pound difference by the time you factor all of that in, unless your labor is of no value. So let's assume that the difference in the health of the bees is only marginal between honey and sugar and ignore that Nosema multiplies better at the pH of sugar than honey and so does Chalkbrood and EFB and AFB. We'll ignore all of that and just assume it's marginal. If there is ANY difference it could tip the scale from a colony surviving and one dying and packages are up around $80 delivered here.


----------



## ACBEES (Mar 13, 2009)

Heck....why even keep bees....


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

beginnerhives said:


> Natural Food
> If I don't feed syrup, I don't have to buy sugar, I don't have to make syrup, I don't have to drive to the yards and I don't have to feed it. If I leave them honey to winter on, there is less honey for me to pull, haul home, extract, haul back empty to get cleaned up and then pull off to store, make syrup, drive to the yards to feed it etc.


And if there's a poor flow and if they don't make any honey and if you don't buy the sugar and if you don't make the syrup and if you don't drive to the yards and if you don't feed the bees you'll haven even less work to do next year. That is after you drive to the yards and discover all the dead colonies and after you clean up the mess and take it all home and then after your equipment gets infested with wax moths and after you wind up throwing it on a great big bon fire at your next pig roast...you can sit at home in front of the fire with your feet up and think about how much time you saved by not feeding your bees.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## CentralPAguy (Feb 8, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> . Even if you are obsessed with the difference in price ($0.40 per pound for sugar vs. some variable price from say $0.90 to $2.00 pound for honey) by the time you extract the honey, buy the sugar, make they syrup, haul it to the yards, feed it, go back and pull the feeders etc. do you honestly think you came out that far ahead? It's not just a $0.60 a pound difference by the time you factor all of that in, unless your labor is of no value


You can get far more than $2.00 a pound per honey if you sell it by the 1 pound jars. There is another post circulating on this forum where they are getting $5, $6 per pound. 

When you are going to a beeyard and you are harvesting hundreds/thousands of pounds at a time, it can be quite substantial when substituting $.50 per pound of sugar for $4 - 5.00 per pound of honey. You are correct that one must consider the expenses of purchasing, mixing, and hauling the syrup to the beeyard. 

Let's say that a beekeeper who has three hives in his backyard may be able to harvest 240 pounds of honey. This has a potential market sale of $960.00$1200.00. If you give them 200 pounds of sugar syrup at $.50 per pound, it equates to $100. A backyard beek has the potential of clearing $800+ for about 5 - 10 hours of work. 

When you multiply that 100 fold, the math is quite easy and it is understandable why individuals harvest the honey and substitute it with sugar syrup.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>There is another post circulating on this forum where they are getting $5, $6 per pound. 


Our packer sells our packed honey for much the same price, on the self.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

I have been thinking about this question. One thing is for sure we all would like to know the answer? 

I thought the immune system would be the key. I looked for some research demonstrating sucrose water's effect on the immune system. I was surprised I did not find anything. I thought with as much research was done with many other factors and stressing the bee's immune system I would find something on sucrose water. 

It seems pretty simple enough a question to answer with research. It is more complex than this but this is the basic idea. Take Twenty colonies that are completely sustained on honey and nectar for greater than 5 years. Divide them into two groups. In the beginning of spring take away all the honey in one group so they will become completely dependant on sugar water. Leave the other group completely sustained with honey. Do this for 5 years. Test each group for their immune immune responses and disease patterns. This might be a good test to see if sugar water is as beneficial as nectar. If drugs need to be used to save the colony keep records of that as well. 


Obviously I am just a beginner so any one else have any more to add. I might be way off base. 

It would be interesting to see also take note of the gut flora of the bee. I would think there is some fermentation process that occurs with honey production? I would also see if there was a difference in enzyme content of the early honey when the bees just transition from sucrose water.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2010)

Can anyone answer this question. Who lost more bees to CCD, commercial beeks or the hobbyist beeks?:scratch:


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Let's use some logic in this question:

When did the disease problems mentioned in this thread start?

When did beekeepers begin feeding sugar water to bees?

Seems to me that beekeepers fed sugar water to bees for years without having the sorts of problems that have been cited in popular literature now. I doubt we can pin all the current problems on a single cause.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Honey Bee Central said:


> Can anyone answer this question. Who lost more bees to CCD, commercial beeks or the hobbyist beeks?:scratch:


Define CCD.
Sheri


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2010)

Is sugar water causing our disease problems?
I see the word disease.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Is sugar water causing the disease problems cited so frequently today?

Certainly sugar water isn't responsible for _Varroa_ mites.

So, let's back up and answer the questions I posed a few posts ago, with the addition of one:

What disease problems specifically are you referencing?

When did those disease problems show up?

When did beekeepers start feeding sugar water?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Honey Bee Central
Incivility is not tolerated on this board.

And yes, I _am_ insinuating that sugar does not have anything to do with "CCD", however you define it. 
Who are "all of the scientist" blaming CCD on sugar? 

You asked who had more losses, commercials or hobbyists. In order to answer that question wouldn't you need to have every colony that dies diagnosed as CCD or not? 

Sheri


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

Why are we "wolves" because we question this theory?? I question every theory I read here and everywhere else. My family has been feeding sugar water to bees for 50 years and never seen the problems and hive losses this industry is facing now (past several years). Sheri asked that the definition of CCD be provided... check a few previous threads on the forum... I think you will find that ALL of us are still awaiting a definition of CCD. YOU ask who has lost more hives to CCD, commercial or hobby beeks. I would guess the answer is commercial. You got a FEW people questioning THIS theory with hundreds of years of beekeeping between them and all of a sudden they are wolves!!!!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

My opinion: sugar water is not singularly responsible for the problems we face as beekeepers today.

Chemically, much of the "sugar water" that is fed to honey bees is identical or virtually identical to their "natural" food sources.

And sugar water has been fed to bees for decades.

The novel pathogens that have been causing recent problems all seem to have appeared within the last several years in North America.

So I see no reason to pin blame on feeding sugar water to bees.

If the alleged link is specifically between CCD and feeding sugar water to bees, I see no logical connection. CCD appeared just a few years ago (again, maybe?), and certainly isn't cause-and-effect for all beekeepers who have been feeding syrup to bees. If the link were as simple as a single factor, I think one or more of the researchers exploring the causes of CCD would have pin-pointed the cause fairly quickly, especially if it were as simple as feeding sugar syrup or not.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Honey Bee Central said:


> I'm not here to argue, and I think you are....... If that’s what this forum is about then I need no part of it,


This forum promotes open discussion of ideas. Asking for clarification or disagreeing with someone's position is not "arguing". This forum is not meant to be a monologue for someone to present unsubstantiated theories as fact without expecting to be challenged.
Sheri


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Honey Bee Central,
How long have you kept bees? How many hives do you have?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And sugar water has been fed to bees for decades.

And for more than a century many beekeepers have considered it a likely cause for the diseases and issues they faced and considered honey to be much better. This would include C.C. Miller, G.M. Doolittle, Jay Smith etc. The observation that bees were not as healthy on sugar water is not a recent observation.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Good posts. 

Yes I am just a beginner so my comments should carry less weight. 

I fully agree that any problems are not just from sucrose water. My point was only that if you feed them a substance that does not support the full health of the bee you might have problems later on. Maybe not for a few generations but you will. I learned from a beek that as soon as the nectar flows the bees will naturally stop taking the sugar feed. That tells me the bees know the difference. I think this issue is just the foundation by which we have built more serious problems on top of. The amount of medication we have to feed our bees should be a good indicator of the long term effects of the sugar water. Pesticides, pollution and other factors probably work synergistically to add to the problem. Food is the foundation of health. That is my point. The fact the bees can adapt to this food just demonstrates how hardy the bees really are. If we could just effectively test the immune system in a very scientific way it could give us the answers. I would only expect only a minor drop with sucrose water but that would be significant over a few years. This would then make sense why we are so dependant on drugs. The seems to match the humans pretty well in that in this country we are one of the sickest nations. Food alone is not the only problem but the foundational problem.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> >And sugar water has been fed to bees for decades.
> 
> And for more than a century many beekeepers have considered it a likely cause for the diseases and issues they faced and considered honey to be much better. This would include C.C. Miller, G.M. Doolittle, Jay Smith etc. The observation that bees were not as healthy on sugar water is not a recent observation.


I would challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that these men ever linked the feeding of sugar to any disease. I have never seen anything anywhere (except here) that links the feeding of cane sugar to any disease of honey bees. Time to pony up the proof.

Pete


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> I would challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that these men ever linked the feeding of sugar to any disease....Time to pony up the proof.
> Pete


a 20 second google search found this on michael's website:

"It is well known that improper diet makes one susceptible to disease. Now is it not reasonable to believe that extensive feeding of sugar to bees makes them more susceptible to American Foul Brood and other bee disease? It is known that American Foul Brood is more prevalent in the north than in the south. Why? Is it not because more sugar is fed to bees in the north while here in the south the bees can gather nectar most of the year which makes feeding sugar syrup unnecessary?"--Better Queens, Jay Smith

...so there is one shred. Michael is more careful with his words than anyone else I know. He wouldn't post this if he couldn't be documented.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

http://books.google.com/books?id=g7...e&q=c.c. miller feeding sugar to bees&f=false

....where c.c. miller states straight out that he believes that feeding the bees sugar will eventually cause them to die of anemia.

deknow


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

beginnerhives said:


> In the beginning of spring take away all the honey in one group so they will become completely dependant on sugar water. Leave the other group completely sustained with honey. Do this for 5 years.


I think we may be talking about a matter of degree. No one would DO this. What is typically done in the northern tier is to feed sugar in fall to make up for any shortfall in winter stores, and sometimes a bit in early spring to stimulate, especially if they are a little light. I have little doubt (but no proof ) the bees would suffer if left on only sugar for 5 years.

We have anecdotally noticed that the years when our colonies were VERY heavy with honey when sent to CA they did better than the years when they had a very poor fall flow, but good late pollen sources may be more of a factor here, I don't know. _THIS_ year our bees look good and it was a total mid summer to fall dearth, one of the worst if not THE worst I can remember. Many would have starved by December if not for the sugar we gave them in October, and the rest probably would have starved by late January. I think it probably comes down to good all around nutrition. We fed plenty of pollen sub as well as sugar.
There will be widespread starvation this winter in a large section of the upper midwest, due to very poor mid summer to fall 2009 flows, but most _especially_ if the beekeeper did not feed.

I liken it to vitamins in people. A balanced diet is best, but if you need to give "supplements" to supply what they need, due to lack of natural nutrition wherever the bees were/are, sugar and pollen sub does the trick. No one to my knowledge feeds sugar and sub as primary year round bee feed, just as no humans that I know of try to live totally on vitamins.
Sheri


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...and although langstroth does see feeding of sugar as important in some cases, he also offers substantial warnings (from my 1884 copy of the hive and the honeybee):

"Few things in practical beekeeping are more important than the feeding of bees; yet none have ben more grossly mismanaged or neglected."

....

"The overfeeding of bees resembles, in its resluts, the noxious influences under which too many children of the rich are reared. Pampered and fed to the full, how often does their wealth prove only a legacy of withering curses, as, bankrupt in purse and character, the prematurely sink to dishonored graves.

The prudent Aparian will regard the feeding of bees-the little given by way of encouragement excepted-as an evil to be submitted to only when it cannot be avoided, and will much prefer that they should obatin their supplies in the manner so beatifully described by him whose inimitable writings furnihs us, on almost every subject, with the happiest illutrations:
[a shakespeare quote follows]"


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

deknow said:


> ...so there is one shred.


A shred at that. I'll be the first one trumpeting "don't feed, leave", but I will also say better to feed sugar than nothing if bees are in dire need.

Miller's take on feeding sugar is far from a scientific study, and you know how I feel about the potential shortfalls of scientific studies when it comes to bees, but this all begs the question of how much is too much when it comes to feeding sugar. That is a critical component.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

deknow said:


> It is known that American Foul Brood is more prevalent in the north than in the south. Why? Is it not because more sugar is fed to bees in the north while here in the south the bees can gather nectar most of the year which makes feeding sugar syrup unnecessary?"


No, it is not. 

Besides, come on. A question is not evidence! Would you be convicted in a court of law if the prosecutor said to you "Were you not at the scene of the crime on the night of November 9" and produced NO more evidence than THAT? 

Try a little harder, gentlemen.

Pete


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Barry (and all),

What Michael posted was not "we have some well done studies that show feeding of sugar causes disease", it was, "the idea that feeding sugar might be bad for bees isn't new, and very prominent (and well respected) beekeepers of the past believed this to be true."

What Peter asked for was not scientific proof, but:


> I would challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that these men ever linked the feeding of sugar to any disease.


These men _did_ in fact link the feeding of sugar to disease. Currently, there is a lot of data from Tobias et al that sugar is an issue for some of the resident microbes. I previously posted an excerpt from a report on a talk they gave in california, and there is also this document (which is missing a lot of specifics, but there is some meat to be gained by looking closely):

http://www.apimondia.org/2009/bee-h... survive without them - OLOFSSON Tobias C.pdf

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> No, it is not.
> Try a little harder, gentlemen.
> Pete


Once again Peter, you chose to selectively quote to make your case.

you said:



> I would challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that these men ever linked the feeding of sugar to any disease.


and I provided a quote from Smith that includes:


> Now is it not reasonable to believe that extensive feeding of sugar to bees makes them more susceptible to American Foul Brood and other bee disease?


Trimming it out of your reply doesn't make it go away.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

All of the comments so far about feeding versus "natural" food miss a couple points:

1) "Feeding" involves far more than simply supplying sugar syrup. I believe most researchers who have studied honey bee nutrition would confirm that research has focused far more heavily on the proteins that bees get from pollen than from the sugars they get from nectar. The complexity of understanding the balances of proteins is far greater than understanding the few sugars in nectar and sugar syrup.

Perhaps more blame for disease/colony problems should be placed on limited diversity of pollen sources or on pollen substitutes than on feeding sugar syrup as a replacement?

2) Left to their own discretion, honey bees will gather sugar syrup or other sugary sources freely. I believe Mark Winston wrote about one beekeeper's hives that were producing vast amounts of honey, only to later find out that the hives were located just a very short distance from a sugar refinery. The implication was that the bees were collecting sugar rather than nectar to produce honey. No comment was made about those bees being in poor condition due to their source of carbohydrates.

In the long run, both sugar syrup and honey all come down to glucose and fructose.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> Perhaps more blame for disease/colony problems should be placed on limited diversity of pollen sources or on pollen substitutes than on feeding sugar syrup as a replacement?


I think that is the inferred difference between the two, sugar and honey, but it is always good to state it in a discussion like this.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> c.c. miller believes that feeding the bees sugar will eventually cause them to die of anemia.

Yeppers, that's proof alright. Got me there.

Pete


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Here is the basic crux of the discussion of the point I was trying to make with the distractions left out:

Kieck＞＞＞＞＞Seems to me that beekeepers fed sugar water to bees for years without having the sorts of problems that have been cited in popular literature now. I doubt we can pin all the current problems on a single cause.

Me>>>>And for more than a century many beekeepers have considered it a likely cause for the diseases and issues they faced and considered honey to be much better. This would include <C.C. Miller, G.M. Doolittle, Jay Smith> (emphasis added) etc. The observation that bees were not as healthy on sugar water is not a recent observation.

Peter>>>I would challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that ＜these men＞ (my emphasis) ever linked the feeding of sugar to any disease. 

Dean>>..so there is one shred. Michael is more careful with his words than anyone else I know. He wouldn't post this if he couldn't be documented. (followed by quotes from Jay Smith and C.C. Miller to that effect)

Peter>Yeppers, that's proof alright. Got me there.

Thanks Dean, for defending me. Sorry, but my days are your nights right now so I can't keep up... my library is a few thousands miles from here, but Dean covered the C.C. Miller and Jay Smith statements. If I had "A year in an out apiary" handy, I think I can find it there but if not, it was in some of Doolittle's answers in the old ABJs from the 1800s (which I have at home) that I read it. As Dean says, I would not have specifically listed those men if I had not read that by those specific men. But my guess is I can come up with several others from other people of that era if I had the time to do the research. I know of many others that thought it was not good for the bees to feed them sugar syrup, but these three I remember making more specific statements.

And no, I did not say there was “proof” of sugar syrup causing disease.

The entire point was, in response to Kieck saying this is all recent, that the observation that sugar syrup feeding might be causing disease is not a recent one and was made by very respected and observant beekeepers quite some time ago.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

All this discussion of "feeling sugar is not good for bees" or "thinking it causes disease" is very interesting but is there any evidence that suggests feeding sugar (to make up for winter shortages, or as primary winter feed) is harmful? 
Again, a 5 year study feeding only sugar might be interesting but has little to do with standard practices. 
Have there been comprehensive studies done comparing equivalent colonies left with only honey and those supplemented or substituted with sugar? The one study Peter presented ( link to that study, please?) seems to suggest a benefit to caged bees. 
Any others out there?
Sheri


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I would be sorry if this whole thing is lost in a sea of words

I suggested that nobody actually LINKED sugar to disease. I never suggested that they didn't think this. Anyone can think whatever they wish. Even Einstein was pleased when actual evidence corroborated his IDEA that gravity bends light. Before that, it was still just an idea. I am asking for and not getting any evidence connecting sugar to disease in honey bees. Still waiting.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> The entire point was, in response to Kieck saying this is all recent,. . . . -Michael Bush


Fair enough, and I've heard the arguments both ways, but here's the problem:

If the "disease problems" (most specifically, CCD, apparently) are not relatively recent, why the recent outcry? And why on earth do we as beekeepers continue to talk about these events as new and developing?

I doubt we saw DWV in North America 50 years ago. I doubt we saw _Nosema ceranae_ in North America 50 years. But I bet beekeepers were feeding sugar syrup 50 years ago.

Feeding sugar syrup may weaken colonies as compared to letting colonies eat honey and no sugar syrup. But for that matter, most of our management techniques may be to blame for weakening colonies. Opening hives for inspections and damaging some comb while opening hives likely doesn't make hives stronger. Neither does requeening on a schedule to best suit the beekeeper.

If, in all of the management of modern bee hives, you can find a way to tease out a single element to pin blame for the problems solely on that one element, I would very much like to read your methodology for isolating such a problem.

A parallel question to, "Is sugar water causing our disease problems?" would be, "Does cold weather cause the common cold in humans?"


----------



## Boris (Jul 12, 2006)

Beginnerhives,

I’m glad to read this part of your statement: “…I do not rely on honey production for my income so I can afford to only extract what they do not need to stay healthy. I predict after a few generations I will begin to lose less bees to disease. “

You can try my advice, posted here:
http://www.beebehavior.com/weak_state_bee_colonies.php
“…in the fall, feed two colonies with syrup and another two colonies with honey and natural pollen (beebread)…You can use a wider sample (perhaps 10 colonies to be fed with sugar syrup, 10 colonies with corn syrup and 10 colonies to be fed with honey and natural pollen). In the spring, during the first colony inspection, compare the number of dead bees in each of the observed colonies. You will see that colonies that were fed with honey and pollen will have at least 15-20% less dead bees than the colonies that were fed with syrup. During this experiment, maintain bees in identical conditions in order to observe only the effect of feeding. This experiment should be repeated 2-3 years in a row.”

Also you can see some pictures, related to the autumn and spring feeding here:
http://www.beebehavior.com/natural_beekeeping.php

Boris


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> I suggested that nobody actually LINKED sugar to disease. I never suggested that they didn't think this.


simply not true peter...but anyone reading this thread already knows that.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The experiment you propose, Boris, fails to test a single variable. In two of the treatment groups, you propose feeding them only syrup. To really compare the effects of honey versus sugar syrup (sucrose or HFCS), you need to either feed none of the groups pollen (bee bread) or all of the groups pollen. Otherwise, the difference in mortality that you observe could be attributable to feeding pollen or not, rather than to feeding syrup versus honey.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> simply not true peter...but anyone reading this thread already knows that. -deknow


I'm confused -- are you suggesting that someone actually has scientifically linked sugar syrup to disease? If so, could you provide full citations, please?


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> Why are we "wolves" because we question this theory?? I question every theory I read here and everywhere else. My family has been feeding sugar water to bees for 50 years and never seen the problems and hive losses this industry is facing now (past several years). QUOTE]
> 
> Agribusiness is continually adding more petrofertilizers to crops to increase production. More pesticides, more insecticides, and more processing. The question may be, how does sugar differ in these contaminants than 50 years ago. Then we feed it to bees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting point, but bear in mind that bees encounter those same pollutants in the environment. The extra little bit in sugar likely wouldn't make much difference, I think.


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

Kieck said:


> Interesting point, but bear in mind that bees encounter those same pollutants in the environment. The extra little bit in sugar likely wouldn't make much difference, I think.


This "extra little bit" of herbacides, pesticides and petrochemicals may build up in the hive, affect the bee's nervous and immune system, and genetics. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

laurelmtnlover said:


> This "extra little bit" of herbacides, pesticides and petrochemicals may build up in the hive, affect the bee's nervous and immune system, and genetics. Then again, maybe not.


Now we are saying it's not the sugar but what's in the sugar? Come on you guys, we are still waiting for someone to show how the feeding of sugar IS connected to bee disease. In reality, NOT in somebody's late night pipe dream. 

I most certainly agree that IF bees were feedlotted, fed sugar, pollen substitute, and meds like cattle that they would not be likely to thrive. I prefer free range meat and eggs to feedlot products. 

But this is simply not the case. It's not cost effective. Normally, bees are moved to good pasture for the purpose of build up. If the weather or some other factor is retarding their buildup, supplemental feed would likely be resorted to, depending on the nature of the deficit. 

If the deficit was severe, the usual practice would be to move them somewhere else, where the plants support bee growth. All this moving is done to enhance the colonies development and AVOID supplemental feeding. Supplemental feeding is generally resorted to in order to avoid moving the bees. 

This has been going on for centuries, by the way. In Slovenia they used to take bees up into the mountains in the summer on horse drawn wagons. In some parts of the world, hives are STILL moved into the mountains on people's backs. 

Take your pick, which is more harmful: feeding supplements, moving bees to better pasture, or leaving them sit out a dearth. Opinions will vary on this one, no doubt. I don't move my bees and I very rarely feed them. I used to raise queen cells for a living and I bought cane sugar at the supermarket for the cell builders. You can't raise queens in bad weather without feeding. 

Pete


----------



## KeyBeeper (Jun 7, 2009)

Yes.

Sugar water does not allow the bees to ferment the bee bread properly. It's a bad thing.


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

Pete,
I did question whether the sugar from 50 years ago differs with increased contaminants than the sugar of 50 years ago, and if that may make any difference, a point for discussion, and not presented as fact. I am trying to proceed with caution. I had hoped for friendly discourse. I am not, and I'll make an assumption here, not as educated as you, as articulate as you, or as experienced in beekeeping as you. I feel you are very harsh. I am here to learn about bees and beekeeping, the more I read, the more questions there are. Please don't quash honest queries or discussion.
Carrie


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

laurelmtnlover said:


> This "extra little bit" of herbacides, pesticides and petrochemicals may build up in the hive, affect the bee's nervous and immune system, and genetics. Then again, maybe not.


And thus is the reason we change out comb on a regular basis! NOt only for that but to control disease!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Take your pick, which is more harmful: feeding supplements, moving bees to better pasture, or leaving them sit out a dearth. Opinions will vary 

yup, that quote about sums it up.

I think we have to watch how we criticize a certain management practice basing all our facts on thoughts and theories. Science is factual and indiscriminate. 
The beekeeping industry relys on feeding the bees syrups/sugars. If it were just supplemental feeding stressing and killing our hives, the problem would be easily identified and proven with actual study


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

WOW do these threads go fast sometimes. Hard to keep up. Sorry.

When I started this thread I did not expect so many people to defend the sugar water. That surprised me. Probably because of how much people promote honey for all of its health properties. 

Someone posted that bees did great with a sugar refinery in the back yard. My take on this is a refinery of sugar makes pure sucrose and remove the nutritious byproducts. The byproducts of making sugar is the good stuff. There is tons of nutrition that is taken out of the cane sugar and discarded. Those bees might have been smart and feed off the nutritious stuff which was being discarded. so I would love to have that refinery near me. I would buy the good stuff for free and mix it with my sugar water and feed that to my bees. 

My question was never: do we sometimes have to feed bees sugar water so they will not die? I just wanted to clarify because some posts have used that argument. I think we do. But my contention is to get to a point that the bees can sustain themselves so we seldom have to feed. 

My Point has being: Is sugar water effecting the bees immune system. As a consequence the bee has less resistance to disease. 


Well there seems to bee  this crowd that is saying show me the research. I happen to be one of those type of people. Very reasonable to ask for proof. Sometime you have to use your common sense. Not all factors are easily discovered with science. 

When was margarine (trans fats) bad for you the first day it was produced or 60 years later when scientists discovered it was? Well there were many people preaching the dangers of trans fats before scientists got around to discovering it. Were those people wrong until the research proved them to be correct? 

Science has many problems. In my real job I have to sift through tons of research and I have found many times we have based some of our foundation principle of nutrition of research that was just incorrect. I think the scientific approach to a problem is beneficial but it can have many downfalls. My point is waiting for science to give you direction in life is not always a good idea. 

I think some people have presented some good science against sugar water but lets assume we did not have that info.


Sometimes it is necessary to solve problems within the context of logic. Or what I like to call evolutionary logic. The reason for this is because sometimes you can see the pit falls of science before science even knows they are wrong by following how a species has evolved. Lets try some evolutionary logic to attempt to address this question.

1. Bees gather nectar, pollen and other stuff. they use all of this stuff to keep them healthy. Heck they have their own medical pharmacy. 
2. Bees make honey to get them through the winter. 
That is evolution. Nothing else for millions of years. 
3. We propose that sugar water is as good as honey for bee health. This seems to be what some people argue. This does go against the evolution of bees but maybe we have improved on nature. I doubt it. 
4. Why would bees not just keep drinking the sugar water we provide in the spring when nectar is available and make honey out of that. It would save a lot of trouble getting the nectar? The bees know it is not the same stuff. I argue they know it does not support them fully 
5. That tells me there is something different about the nutritional value between the two.
6. The white sugar you by in the store has been striped of its nutritive properties as it existed in cane sugar. That is why you have refineries. 
7. Crap food for humans is cheap. Same for bees. That is why there is such an incentive to take more honey off the hive and figure you can make up the difference with feeding cheap sugar. Point is nectar is not just valuable for its sucrose
8. why is honey so expensive if it is no better than the sugar it contains? 
9. We should sell sugar water and mix in some bee pollen. :doh:
10. Bees can not make honey out of sugar water they can just store it. Why not if nectar is just sugar. 

I am relatively certain that sugar water is not near as nutritious as nectar or honey. It is just a mater of time before science finds just how much has to be consumed before it effects the bees health. It may also take some time before they design a good experiment to demonstrate this. I hold fast to the idea of testing the immune system in sugar water. That should demonstrate it.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> Have there been comprehensive studies done comparing equivalent colonies left with only honey and those supplemented or substituted with sugar? The one study Peter presented ( link to that study, please?) seems to suggest a benefit to caged bees.


LABORATORY COMPARISON OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, GRAPE SYRUP, HONEY, AND SUCROSE SYRUP AS MAINTENANCE FOOD FOR CAGED
HONEY BEES
Roy J. BARKER Yolanda LEHNER
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Bee Research Laboratory, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, Arizona 85719

In Apidologie, 1978, 9 (2)


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I think some people have presented some good science against sugar water but lets assume we did not have that info.

Boy, I must have missed that. Which post was it in?

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colony Performance in Relation to Supplemental Carbohydrates
Authors: Severson, D. W.; Erickson, E. H.
Source: Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 77, Number 6, December 1984 , pp. 1473-1478(6)

Abstract:

The increasing use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a supplemental carbohydrate source for honey bee colonies suggested the need for research concerning potential deleterious effects of HFCS on colony performance. Sucrose, 42% HFCS, and 55% HFCS were compared as supplemental carbohydrate sources for colonies established from packages during 1982 and 1983 at Madison, Wis. 

During 1982, there were no significant differences among treatments in early season weight gains, season honey production, or sealed brood measurements. There were no significant differences among treatments in winter consumption. During 1983, there were no significant differences among treatments in cluster size or newly emerged worker whole-body dry weights in the spring or head and thorax dry weights. 

Spring sealed brood was significantly greater in the sucrose treatment than in the HFCS treatments. Differences among treatments in season honey production were not significant. We concluded that feeding either 42 or 55% HFCS as carbohydrate supplements does not adversely affect honey bee colony performance.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

The food of adult worker bees consists of pollen and nectar or honey. Nectar and honey contribute mostly mono and oligo saccharides to the food of bees. Water plays an important role in the life of bees. The form of food has little influence on the longevity provided water is available. 

Isolated queens kept in cages and offered sugar candy and water are known to live on an average of two weeks or more; kept without water they survive only three or four days. It is a well-known fact that a colony of bees utilizes large amounts of water during the active season to dilute honey and to regulate temperature in the brood nest.

Under natural conditions, pollen supplies the necessary proteins for bees. Under adverse conditions, when supplies of pollen are lacking for long periods, bees use honey (mostly carbohydrate) as their only food. 

Under experimental conditions, a colony of bees kept on a pure carbohydrate diet will start rearing brood. However, for this the bees utilize materials of their own bodies, with a consequent loss of weight and diminished N content which is greatest in the abdomen. 

When freshly emerged bees are kept on a pure carbohydrate diet, the N content of their bodies diminishes and mortality greatly increases. However, when, even after 30 days on a pure sugar diet, protein-starved bees are offered pollen normal development is re-established and the young bees reared by them are normal. 

When the diet consumed by emerged bees is inadequate, weight and N content increases very slightly. If these bees, even after 60 days on such a ration, receive a proper diet, their growth becomes normal. 

This phenomenon is of great importance. It indicates the tremendous ability of a colony of bees to adjust itself to adverse circumstances and to recover when normal conditions return.

Carbohydrate requirements of honey bees have been determined by feeding various sugar solutions to bees and comparing their longevity with that of those receiving pure water. 

By this method it was found that bees can utilize the following "sweet" sugars: glucose, fructose, saccharose (sucrose), maltose, trehalose, melezitose; those unsweet: arabinose, xylose, galactose, cellobiose, raffinose, mannitol, sorbitol. 

They cannot utilize rhamnose, fucose, mannose, sorbose, lactose, melibiose, dulcitol, erythritol, or inositol. Mannose is decidedly poisonous to honey bees

Haydak. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1970.15:143-156.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_They cannot utilize rhamnose, fucose, mannose, sorbose, lactose, melibiose, dulcitol, erythritol, or *inositol*._

:scratch:

Brood Rearing by Caged Honey Bees in Response to Inositol 

IngentaConnect Brood Rearing by Caged Honey Bees in Response to Inositol and Cer... 
Abstract:

Caged colonies of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., were unable to rear brood beyond a larval age of 3-4 days when fed an artificial diet containing proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and minerals. *However, a final concentration of 4.5 mg inositol, a vitamin, in each gram of the artificial food, enabled bees to rear normal brood through the adult stage during a test period of 72 days. *Furthermore, addition of 3.5 milligrams of pollen ash per gram of artificial diet also enabled bees to rear all stages of brood during a test period of 44 days. Additions of both pollen ash and inositol to the artificial diet gave no better results than either alone. 

Bees could rear all stages of brood when a concentrated aqueous extract of crushed pollen grains was mixed with the artificial diet. The concentrate could be prepared either by lyophilization or drying at 100°C in a laboratory oven. No further characterization of the active component(s) in the concentrate has been made. A completely liquid formulation failed to sustain brood rearing. Incorporation of several sterols in addition to cholesterol in artificial diet also failed to sustain brood rearing. 
Document Type: Research article 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=456446&postcount=20


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Were those people wrong until the research proved them to be correct? 

Of course they were.  They were not being good scientists...


----------



## KeyBeeper (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm not sure if anyone will listen, but here is some relevant scientific information. Honestly, I think beeks are some of the most stubborn people in the world once they develop a habit, a line of thinking or protocol.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=to-bee-or-not-to-bee-09-08-21

Berenbaum: Honeybees, everybody thinks eats honey and pollen, but in reality they feed their grub something called bee bread, which is a mixture of honey and pollen packed into cells, and it cures or ages. And the suspicion is that maybe some of these symbiotic microbes are contributing to the sort of processing of bee bread. So one of the findings from this yet unpublished work that was discussed in Florida at the meeting that Reed attended, Apiary Inspectors of America, was a high-fructose corn syrup which is the preferred diet for overwintering bees because it's much cheaper than feeding them honey or sugar; apparently it wipes out these potentially symbiotic microbes. One thing that Reed found that's in his dissertation, when you feed honeybees honey, they upregulate their cytochrome p450 monooxygenases, these enzymes that process among other things plant chemicals, when you give them sugar, it's nothing. So when you feed them on a sugar diet they are not turning on their chemical processing equipment, so this is something that nobody expected. I mean people aren't used to thinking of honeybees as broad generalists because they'll feed on hundreds of different flowers, but in a way they are dietary super specialists because they feed on this narrow range—they feed on pollen, honey and bee bread. And granted the components can come from all different places, but feeding on nectar or honey derived from nectars [is a] very different proposition from feeding on other types of plant tissue because plants load up their vulnerable tissues with chemicals, you know, natural pesticides, so that insects won't eat them, but they want insects to eat nectar; that's the whole point [of nectar].


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Continuing:

Steve: So it's possible that this high-fructose corn syrup that's, you know, partially responsible for the obesity epidemic in humans is also having a devastating effect on the bee population.

Berenbaum: Well, that's a big jump, but I would say that feeding bees other than honey may have physiological consequences that nobody anticipated. Back in the '70s the dietary studies were conducted, at least one of the USDA bee labs, and certainly short term there is no longevity effect. And that actually led to the widespread adoption of these alternative diets. But nobody was looking at the microbial symbionts in the gut, nobody was looking at the detoxification enzymes, we didn't even know to look. So there may be subtle effects.

Berenbaum: We have a lot to learn and at least the pace of learning has been stepped up.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

I have a 2009 paper by Reed Johnson and May Berenbaum right here on my lap. They describe one of the honey bees chief defenses: rapid detoxifcation mediated by cytochrome P450 monooxygenase enzymes (P450s). 

Nowhere in this paper is sugar implicated. So, while the feeding of sugar is implicated in the interview with Dr. Berenbaum, the published work really places the blame for P450 depletion somewhere else:

QUOTE:
> we observed a large increase in the toxicity of tau-fluvalinate to 3-d-old bees that had been treated previously with coumaphos, and a moderate increase in the toxicity of coumaphos in bees treated previously with tau-fluvalinate. The observed synergism may result from competition between miticides for access to detoxicative P450s. These results suggest that honey bee mortality may occur with the application of otherwise sublethal doses of miticide when tau-fluvalinate and coumaphos are simultaneously present in the hive.

I found this statement to be of interest:
> Colonies were maintained using standard preventative treatment for bee pests and diseases: American foulbrood (Paenibacillus larvae) was prevented with terramycin, Nosema spp. infection was prevented with Fumidil B, and varroa mite (V. destructor) infestation was controlled with powdered sugar treatment and Apilife Var. Neither Apistan nor Checkmite had been used in any of the equipment for at least 5 yr.

Finally, they summarize:
> the possibility exists that synthetic organic insecticides may be metabolized in honey bees by a very small number of detoxicative P450 enzymes. The synergistic interactions observed between coumaphos and tau-fluvalinate may even result from competition between these compounds for access to the same P450 enzyme. Pesticide levels leading to synergism in this study are within the range that can be encountered in managed hives.

I have been advising against the use of these products for several years now, and this brings up a very important new fact. While beekeepers were told not to use these products together, they were told to alternate them. Alternating treatment is standard IPM practice. However, in this case, due to the cumulative effect of the two substances, they apparently form a dangerous combination. I am going to put a plug in for APILIFE VAR.

SEE:

Synergistic Interactions Between In-Hive Miticides in Apis mellifera
REED M. JOHNSON, HENRY S. POLLOCK, AND MAY R. BERENBAUM
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 102, no. 2


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> > I think some people have presented some good science against sugar water but lets assume we did not have that info.
> 
> Boy, I must have missed that. Which post was it in?
> 
> Pete


Yes that was a bit of an overstatement. Sorry. The article on gut health did seem to support the dangers of sugar water. 

I am very surprised that there has not been some research in this area. I saw some really good studies on Pubmed that researched less important issues. Feeding studies to see if the bees get fat do not suggest it is just as good as nectar. I know with humans you need to follow your feeding studies for generations to see the harm of refined foods. That is why it took so long for us to realize the importance of phytochemicals both known and unknown. When humans depart from their traditional diets to refined diets they suffer the same raises in disease we have in this country. 

I think the burden of proof should be on the sugar believers. We should assume the nectar and honey are the best complex carb source for bees. It is sugar water that should have to prove itself.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

beginnerhives said:


> When was margarine (trans fats) bad for you the first day it was produced or 60 years later when scientists discovered it was? Well there were many people preaching the dangers of trans fats before scientists got around to discovering it.


Hmm. Are you sure about that? Or was it scientists who identified the problem in the first place?

see
August 16, 1990 New England Journal of Medicine 
Effect of dietary trans fatty acids on high-density and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in healthy subjects. by RP Mensink, and MB Katan


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

beginnerhives said:


> I think the burden of proof should be on the sugar believers. We should assume the nectar and honey are the best complex carb source for bees. It is sugar water that should have to prove itself.


Nobody that I know has ever disputed the fact that nectar and honey are the best for bees! However, starting with A I Root back in the 1800s, it has long been believed by the majority of beekeepers that the best food for bees after real honey is sugar syrup. 

Now, folks come along and say maybe the feeding of sugar syrup is making bees sick. Well, bees are sick all over North America and Europe. There has been a mountain of research done in the past 10 years to find out how to get them healthy again.

You may think that sugar is the chief culprit but there simply is no scientific backing for such a position. Viruses, pesticides and pathogens are at the top of most bee researchers lists as the most likely candidates. So if you want to implicate sugar, I guess the burden for proof is on you.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

This is about a good a compromise position as any, and I support it:

§ 188. Extracted honey of your own crop, or granulated sugar reduced to the consistency of honey, is best for feeding, in the absence of good sealed honey. The poor grades of sugar and glucose are totally unfit for feeding bees. To stimulate in the spring, one half of a pound per day is sufficient for a colony.

§ 189. Foreign or unknown honey should never be fed to bees, as it may contain the germs of foulbrood, while apparently nice and sound.

§ 190. Good honey is considered as much more suitable food for bees, for the rearing of brood, in the spring, than the very best of sugar syrup. Being their natural food, it very probably contains the necessary elements for the development of the growing insect, during its metamorphosis, for honey has been shown to contain besides the saccharine matter, more or less pollen, essential oils, tannin, different salts and phosphates, manganese, sulphur, iron, etc. These substances, which might be injurious if in too great proportion in the winter food, are most likely beneficial in the rearing of brood.

1919 FIRST LESSONS IN BEEKEEPING By C. P. Dadant 
Published by American Bee Journal Hamilton, Illinois

just a PS, in response to comments that my postings have been inconsistent, I would like to explain my method. When examining a topic I attempt to draw out all points of view, especially when there is disagreement on key points. In the final analysis, I often reach a conclusion, as in this post. Sometimes no conclusion can be reached, we need to await better information. In all and every case, however, it is incumbent upon the reader to use their brains and reach a reasoned viewpoint.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> We should assume the nectar and honey are the best complex carb source for bees. It is sugar water that should have to prove itself. -beginnerhives


I'm not chemist, and my knowledge of nutrition isn't all that great, but I'm not convinced that this is accurate. I don't believe either nectar or honey contain complex carbohydrates. Quite the opposite, I think. I think they are primarily simple sugars.

From a chemical standpoint, what is the difference between honey and high fructose corn syrup or sugar syrup?


----------



## Boris (Jul 12, 2006)

Kieck,

Do you have bees now?

Boris


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Yes, Boris. I have bees now.

Just to preempt the next question: no, I did not feed my bees sugar syrup of HFCS last year. I did feed sugar syrup heavily a few years ago to any starting hives. I didn't like the time or effort to feed them, or the expense. Let them do find nectar and pollen is the way I operate right now.

But I noticed no health issues from feeding sugar syrup. I noticed no increase in disease, or decrease in vitality, or any apparent difference.


----------



## Boris (Jul 12, 2006)

Could you show us some photos of your apiary (bee yard)? Please.

Boris


----------



## denny (Aug 2, 2006)

> We should assume the nectar and honey are the best complex carb source for bees. It is sugar water that should have to prove itself. -peterloringborst


Kieck......no doubt just a simple mistake,...but your above quote was not what peterloringborst said,...but rather the words of beginnerhives at the end of post #161


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Good catch, denny, and my apologies to both beginnerhives and peterloringborst for my mistake. I've edited the post to make the correction.

Boris --

Which yard of mine? My home yard or one of my outyards? I don't have current photos of all of them; I don't have very current photos of any of them. But out of curiosity: why? What purpose would posting photos serve in this conversation?


----------



## Boris (Jul 12, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Which yard of mine? My home yard or one of my outyards? I don't have current photos of all of them; I don't have very current photos of any of them ( Again?). But out of curiosity: why? What purpose would posting photos serve in this conversation?



You are trying to make conversation with me, but why I have to believe that you have bees and you are real beekeeper?

Boris


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Well, first, you jumped in, Boris. I didn't seek you out in this thread. But why does it matter? I've mentioned my experience, but the questions before that can be posed by beekeeper or non-beekeeper. The answers to those questions should not change based on the person asking the question.

If you really want to know whether or not I have hives, check with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture. They can verify that I have had hives in South Dakota since 2005. In this state, hives must be registered, and the state does periodic inspections of hives. If you check with them, you can take the word of someone else that I currently have bees.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> ... was it scientists who identified the problem in the first place?
> see
> August 16, 1990 New England Journal of Medicine
> Effect of dietary trans fatty acids on high-density and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in healthy subjects...


weston price was touting the health benefits of butter over margarine in the 1930's, while the scientists were all advocating margarine over butter for health. 

deknow


----------



## Boris (Jul 12, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Well, first, you jumped in, ...


It’s not truth – see your post #141


I would like to see your apiary, because it helps me to set a level of my responses for your comments.

Boris


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> It’s not truth – see your post #141 -Boris


Right you are, Boris. My mistake, and my apologies.

So, let's get back to that post for a second. How do you propose to eliminate the second variable you proposed in the experiment so we can isolate sugar syrup versus honey?



> I would like to see your apiary, because it helps me to set a level of my responses for your comments. -Boris


I have 14 hives right now. All Langstroth equipment, all deeps and all doubles for brood nests except two that are extra deep singles. I had 15 this fall, one was weak and I combined to result in 14 hives.

If you need more "proof," again I suggest you contact the South Dakota Department of Agriculture Apiary Services to verify the information. As far as photos, I could post a photo of any hives -- that wouldn't demonstrate they're mine.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Hi peterloringborst, 
This seems really reasonable to me. thanks for the info on not feeding other honey from other hives to mine. Good info. 
I get your approach you described about how you like to tease out the info, no need to explain. I really respect you. :gh:

Sorry I made a mistake in my last post. Sorry if it was confusing. I posted something like honey was a complex carb. Obviously it is not a complex carb. I was thinking was there is a complex of other stuff in the honey along with the carbs but it did not say that. Next time I will try to engage my brain. :doh: I think I also called used the word glucose much earlier instead of sucrose. Sorry. 

So everyone agrees nectar and honey is superior to sugar water. Then to what degree is sugar water inferior? Enough to suppress the immune system or make them more susceptible to the diseases we face? 

Does anyone believe that the sugar water feeding do not in any way increase our dependence on the use of drugs in the hive?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

removed


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

deknow said:


> weston price was touting the health benefits of butter over margarine in the 1930's, while the scientists were all advocating margarine over butter for health.


Now we know they're both bad for your health. I use olive oil


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Does anyone believe that the sugar water feeding do not in any way increase our dependence on the use of drugs in the hive? -beginnerhives


I do.

When I supplemented some starting hives in the past, I did not use drugs on those hives. They survived and did quite well.

Now, if you took _all_ the honey in a hive all year long and replaced all of it with HFCS or sugar syrup, you might start seeing some detrimental effects.

The title of this thread leads to the presumption that feeding sugar syrup causes colony collapse disorder (CCD). I strongly believe that sugar syrup is not the cause of CCD.

As far as whether or not sugar syrup might suppress bees' immune systems, I wonder if the effects of such a thing might not be masked by all sorts of other factors.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Now we know they're both bad for your health. I use olive oil


Why do you believe butter is bad for you? Are you talking about processed butter that you buy at wal-mart or REAL organic butter from cows that graze on grass? 
Do you believe eggs are bad as well? Just Curious


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Off topic warning!



beginnerhives said:


> Why do you believe butter is bad for you? Are you talking about processed butter that you buy at wal-mart or REAL organic butter from cows that graze on grass?
> Do you believe eggs are bad as well? Just Curious


As someone who has been battling astronomical cholesterol levels for 20 years I am quite familiar with nutritional theory. However, my problem is mostly genetic. Anyway, this description of the mediterranean diet summarizes what I believe about butter. I am not a religious avoider of dairy, I do eat cheese. But rarely butter, seldom eggs, sparingly ice cream. These things are loaded with animal fats. I take omega-3 daily

> The focus of the Mediterranean diet isn't to limit total fat consumption, but to make wise choices about the types of fat you eat. The fats are healthy — including monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil, and polyunsaturated fats, which contain the beneficial linolenic acid (a type of omega-3 fatty acid). These fat sources include canola oil and nuts, particularly walnuts. Fish — another source of omega-3 fatty acids — is eaten on a regular basis in the Mediterranean diet. Omega-3 fatty acids lower triglycerides and may improve the health of your blood vessels. The Mediterranean diet discourages saturated fats and hydrogenated oils (trans-fatty acids), both of which contribute to heart disease. The Mediterranean diet emphasizes using olive oil as your primary source of fat, rather than animal or dairy fats.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

beginnerhives said:


> Does anyone believe that the sugar water feeding do not in any way increase our dependence on the use of drugs in the hive?


I think we have made it quite clear that supplemental feeding of sugar syrup has no long term harmful effect. As was stated, IF bees were feed lotted on sugar and soy, one would hardly expect them to thrive, probably would end up with all the problems of the livestock industry. 

That scenario simply does not reflect the real world of beekeeping in the USA. Those of us who are in constant contact with large scale beekeepers know that this is simply not how beekeeping is done. 

If you want to talk about what is causing widespread bee losses and the depression of the honey bee immune system, let's do it. But for Pete's sake, lose the "sugar water" thread!


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Recent studies show that sugar actually may cure most diseases.

> Here is an example. You get a migraine, and you take a visit to your local homeopath. He or she sits you down, listen to your problem, ask you lots of questions about yourself, is generally sympathetic and then hands you a packet of sugar pills (with a fancy sounding name) that he or she says will make you feel better. You go home, take your sugar pills and the next day you are fine. The pills worked! Of course you could have done nothing, had a good sleep and the next day been fine anyway. 

> Do you remember the 18th century? You know, the good old days of medicine, when bacteria and viruses hadn’t been discovered, no-one really knew why people got sick, and doctors made a good living by wiping peoples foreheads with a damp towel while they watched them die. Medical science has since come on in leaps and bounds, with the discovery of antibiotics, routine vaccinations and all kinds of really useful pills and jabs. We are now living longer and healthier lives than we ever have before.

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/article/1851


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Not all factors are easily discovered with science.

Begginnerhives,

Yes, sometimes you really have to dig, but
Something as simple to control, fed bees or not fed bees, done with a world wide survey surely would show more conclusive proof


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Recent studies show that sugar actually may cure most diseases.
> 
> > Here is an example. You get a migraine, and you take a visit to your local homeopath. He or she sits you down, listen to your problem, ask you lots of questions about yourself, is generally sympathetic and then hands you a packet of sugar pills (with a fancy sounding name) that he or she says will make you feel better. You go home, take your sugar pills and the next day you are fine. The pills worked! Of course you could have done nothing, had a good sleep and the next day been fine anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Medical science has since come on in leaps and bounds, with the discovery of antibiotics, routine vaccinations and all kinds of really useful pills and jabs. We are now living longer and healthier lives than we ever have before._

How much of our longevity is due to medical science, and how much is due to a few generations having an adequate food supply, with high protein diets? Subsistence living combined with hard physical labor for years on end takes its toll on the body. Americans especially tend to live very sedentary lives - I know people who are apalled at callouses, and those people have no fear of working themselves to death.

Our present longevity is puny compared to Biblical accounts. Methuselah, Noah, etc. - and they didn't have our present medical science.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

peterloringborst said:


> If you want to talk about what is causing widespread bee losses and the depression of the honey bee immune system, let's do it. But for Pete's sake, lose the "sugar water" thread!


Are you really that confident that nutrition doesn't play any part in honey bee losses? Are you even able to say with reasonable certainty that losses are due to only a single factor? I am just wondering because I know you are out on the front lines of this and would know what's been ruled out and what hasn't.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

SgtMaj said:


> Are you really that confident that nutrition doesn't play any part in honey bee losses? Are you even able to say with reasonable certainty that losses are due to only a single factor? I am just wondering because I know you are out on the front lines of this and would know what's been ruled out and what hasn't.


I am quite certain that nutrition is one of the KEY components. Just not sugar. Sugar in the equation is essentially neutral. I have said over and again, that natural pasture is key to honey bee success.

I have never stated nor implied that honey bee losses are caused by any single factor. I don't even know how anyone could have gotten the idea. I don't think anything has been "ruled out" by the experts.

I simply think that hanging the bees' woes on sugar is facile and unsupportable. Show me evidence of harm where sugar can be directly implicated and I will reconsider everything I have said.

My mind is not made up on anything, I try to stay current and on top of the best information available


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> So everyone agrees nectar and honey is superior to sugar water.

Actually, no. 

_Some_ honey may be superior to some sugar water, but the converse is true also. 

There is a lot of honey that can be bad for wintering bees. On the other hand, properly mixed white table sugar in water fed properly and that the proper time is equal to pretty well any honey for winter feed. That has been proven repeatedly and quite conclusively.

> Then to what degree is sugar water inferior? Enough to suppress the immune system or make them more susceptible to the diseases we face? 

Bee diseases? Hardly, but honey can be a carrier of many of them.

> Does anyone believe that the sugar water feeding do not in any way increase our dependence on the use of drugs in the hive? 

Those who read fact-based literature based on controlled and replicated experiments, understand that sugar water feeding can actually reduce the need for drugs because it is sterile and carries no disease. It also dilutes the pathogen load in hives and reduces the need for bees to deplete their body reserves foraging when hives are light and little can be found outside the hive.

Additionally, besides the benefits to the bees, there is a benefit to the beekeeper. Wintering in the North uses as much as $100 worth of honey (see http://honeybeeworld.com/diary/images/2010/diary01.jpg) and replacing some of that 50 to 60 pounds or so of honey with sugar can mean considerable savings.


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

[QUOTE=Allen Dick;501768 

<Those who read fact-based literature based on controlled and replicated experiments, understand that sugar water feeding can actually reduce the need for drugs because it is sterile and carries no disease.>

---Unless one is using sterile water and vessels, sugar water will not be sterile.
Glucose can also feed bacteria in the sugar/water.

"sterile - definition of sterile in the Medical dictionary - by the ...
ster·ile (st r l, - l ). adj. 1. Not producing or incapable of producing offspring. 2. Free from all live bacteria or other microorganisms and their spores. ...
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sterile "


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Most commecial beekeepers up our way receive their food-quality sterle and certified syrup in sealed tankers and run it into clean tanks and handle it with equipment dedicated to the purpose. 

Inside beehives, technically speaking, nothing is sterile. Some say that is a good thing.

(I return you now to your regualy scheduled flame war)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm going to go a bit farther than Allen Dick. When I made sugar syrup in the past, I brought the water to a boil for a while before adding the sugar. I realize bacteria and fungi will land in the completed solution pretty quickly, but the boiling water should pretty well sterilize things to start out.

Of course, nectar is prone to bacteria and fungi landing in it as well.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Allen is referring to diseases that will affect bees. Using pure clean water and pure clean sugar, what diseases do you suppose will be there? 

We are primarily concerned about transmitting foulbrood or nosema spores. These will not be present in syrup but they could very likely be in honey.


----------



## laurelmtnlover (May 29, 2009)

Thanks Mr. Dick,
I will keep that in mind if I need to feed sugar water.
Carrie


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

After having jumped in, I realised I should read the whole thread. 

Fascinating! The blanks and deleted posts, especially allowed my imagination to run wild. Obviously this is a topic to arouse the passions. Who would have thought? And margarine...

At any rate, I realised we have been arguing apples against oranges, and when this topic comes up, that is usually the case. Asumptions are made by each according to his/her experience or lack thereof.

Syrup shoud be compared to nectar, not honey. That became apparent when the following was presented:

> it was said that the PH of sugar syrup is around 6, and the PH of honey is around 4...

No one asked, "What is the pH of nectar". I'm not sure if it matters, but that would be more approprate IMO.

Also, in reference to 'beneficial' flora and fauna, I have yet to find any scientist of repute say more then "may" or "suspected" in that regard. Generally, a lot of caution is evident in the writings. Personally, I have little doubt that some of the flora and fauna in the beehive and the bee serve useful functions. Essential? I just don't know.

Do antibiotics or sugar feeds disrupt these flora and fauna? I don't know. I should think there would be some effect, but I have no notion of what would be that Platonic "ideal state". 

I also know that if you place any two microorganisms side by side the odds are as good that they will fight, and fight dirty with their own chemical weapons (so-called antibiotics) or compete, as that they will ignore one another or co-operate.

As for feeding sugar syrups, what is taken for granted to us oldtimers and may be news to the newbees is that we all know that feeding syrup is just as hard on bees as a nectar flow is. 

In Australia, beekeepers sometimes must pull their bees off strong nectar flows so the bees do not run themselves into the ground. Gathering and storing sucrose is hard on them, whether from flowers, or from feeders. HFCS may be less demanding in that one regard, but that is another story, since the topic is sugar water, and HFCS has its own issues. ( I also read that article in Bee Culture and hope someone opens a new thread on that one). 

The thing is that if we feed syrups, we feed them when the bees have the resources to invert them into something virtually indistinguishable from honey which is stored and capped in combs just like honey. That is the syrup we find to be good winter feed.

If people are thinking we feed syrup all winter, we don't. Bees in winter are hard-pressed to stay alive, let alone do the inversion they do during summer or fall. (That is a reason that I am not a fan of the Mountain Camp Method other than as emergency feed)

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Nothing is ever simple.

P.S. I haven't fed my bees syrup for many years, but do not hesitate to recommend the practise where appropriate.


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

"Nothing is simple" pretty much sums it up.

As a new keep, here is what I listen to (read)... 1:1, 2:1, fall, spring, MC, pH, boardman, pail, top hive feeder, chemicals, nectar, pollen, flows, HFCS, ...

ad infinitium

Nothing is simple - especially bees


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> Allen is referring to diseases that will affect bees. Using pure clean water and pure clean sugar, what diseases do you suppose will be there?


This is all very vulnerable to the 'mollycoddle' argument. If you make things easy for your apiary, your future generations will tend to be vulnerable. 

In my coppice the ground level is a seething mass of dirt, bacteria, viruses, fungus and other perils. The trees that make it out of that mess, and thrive despite it, are the ones that have earned the right to be there, and are the stock whose seeds I want for new plantations. Grabbing all the emerging seedlings and removing them to a sterile environment to be grown on, and to take seed from, would be very stupid indeed.

This principle holds across all nature. Its a jungle out there; and we moddlycoddle our stock at a cost to future generations.

Of course, if you plan to requeen each year that isn't a problem... But for everyone else, especially those trying to do their bit to preserve a healthy diversity of self-sufficient bees, perhaps this aspect of the real world should be taken into account here as elsewhere.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> You guys are trying to make a case for natural vs man made and it leads nowhere. No wait, where it leads to is that bees lived millions of years without us and we have no right to keep them for our pecuniary motives. If they are sick and dying, it's just nature getting rid of the unfit.
> Pete


Simple mistake of reasoning Peter. Bees are 'sick and dying' for lots of reasons; AND.... 

...SOMETIMES it IS just nature getting rid of the unfit!

In a normal, wild setting, I'd guess about half the time. That is, bees produce around twice as many offspring as are needed to maintain the population. (Perhaps someone can refine this figure?)

As and when this is NOT happening there is degradation of the genetic health of the population as the predators are evolving while the prey are not.

That describes the current state of 'beekeeping' in the 'developed' world.

Mike


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

hoodswoods said:


> "Nothing is simple" pretty much sums it up.


I think you missed this article 

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/allen-dick/beekeeping-is-very-simple/


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Barry said:


> I think you missed this article
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/allen-dick/beekeeping-is-very-simple/


While this article has much to commend it, it misses an essential point. Our bees must be free to employ the main health-locating mechanism that nature has equipped them with. That is: the worst-equipped must not pass on their traits; the best-equipped must be able to raise their numbers.

This entails that every time we 'help' a colony, we 'poison' the local breeding population by an equal and opposite amount. 

This is, for those unfamiliar with the thinking, often counter-intuitive, and thus does not seem simple at all. And the difficulties created by being surrounded by people who do treat, and thus continually throw ill-equipped genes into your apiary complicate matters further.

I think 'keep it natural' is a better guide than 'keep it simple' - but you do have to understand how nature works, or be taught the core (and simple) methods of selective husbandry. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

RE:

Beekeeping is Very Simple
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000
From: Allen Dick
Subject: Beekeeping is Very Simple

By the date we can see that that was pre-CCD. Fact is we are living in a new world with pathogens much more rapidly moving around the globe. In many cases, the old rules simply no longer apply. Everybody wants simple, it is easy to grasp. But all too often, simple leaves out much necessary detail. 

For example, when DNA was first discovered, they thought they had discovered the "code of life". Just decipher it, and we would know everything. Well, it turns out that the code was just the beginning: now they trying to figure out the CPU that processes the code.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

peterloringborst said:


> [...] Everybody wants simple, it is easy to grasp. But all too often, simple leaves out much necessary detail. [...]


Babies, bathwater... As someone recently said; you don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car. 

Cars have four wheels: True.

16 valve engines achieve better cylinder airflow than 8 valve engines. Maybe, depends - but whatever the answer (if there is one) CARS STILL HAVE FOUR WHEELS.

Further detail isn't always helpful, and is often singularly unhelpful. An appropriate level of detail to the needs of the discussion is what is required; together with the constant maintainance of the grounding truths.

Mike


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> I think you missed this article 

Good one. You got me, Barry. 

I'll endorse Peter's answer, though, and add to that the fact that not only are pathogens and pests are coming at us far more quickly than in the past, but that new information is replacing or revising old infomation at blinding speed. I tell anyone who cares that anything I wrote more than a few days ago is already out of date but is still good for amusement purposes.

Nonetheless, there is a fundamental idea in that article which most people will understand. 

BTW, whatever happened to the "ignore" option in these forums? I have recently had need of it an cannot find it.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

mike bispham said:


> In a normal, wild setting, I'd guess about half the time. That is, bees produce around twice as many offspring as are needed to maintain the population. (Perhaps someone can refine this figure?)


You said it, you refine it.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

I could spend days trying to track down the answer to that question Michael, when somebody here may already know it, or know where to find it easily and be willing to contribute to the community. It may be that the question has never been studied. So it seemed to me that asking for help was reasonable and sensible. Or is there some convention here that you shouldn't raise questions you can't answer yourself? I don't get it.

Mike


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

mike bispham said:


> Or is there some convention here that you shouldn't raise questions you can't answer yourself? I don't get it.
> 
> Mike


Nope, not at all. I'm not into fight picking...it's just that you stated a fact, and I was wondering where the idea came from...that "bees produce twice as many offspring as needed to maintain the population." Was that from some gut feeling, something you read, or something you made up that sounded good...to fit your agenda? 

Does that mean half the bees are going to waste?

If you want to debate, don't come up with sweeping statements that are unsubstantiated opinion. I guess that's the only convention I would ask for.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Many of the folks posting on this Thread are know to the majority of us to a greater or lesser degree and have weight and credibilty to their credit. I don't know mike bispham. I don't know if anyone else knows him either. Saying that I don't know him isn't meant to mean anything other than that. At least by reputation I know Allen Dick, or at least of him and his website. Mike Palmer and Peter Borst I have shaken hands w/ and shared food and drink w/. They are of sound mind and good intent, especially regarding bees and beekeeping. The same is probably true w/ mike bispham.

Let's keep our conversation civil, informative and varied. State our pov w/out critisism of the other person. I think Barry would agree w/ that. I think that that is what he promotes.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

Michael Palmer said:


> ...it's just that you stated a fact, and I was wondering where the idea came from...that "bees produce twice as many offspring as needed to maintain the population." Was that from some gut feeling, something you read, or something you made up that sounded good...to fit your agenda?
> 
> Does that mean half the bees are going to waste?
> 
> If you want to debate, don't come up with sweeping statements that are unsubstantiated opinion. I guess that's the only convention I would ask for.


Apologies, I hadn't realised that would not be understood here. However I'm glad you asked. That is, in my mind what dialogue, or debating is, and one of the benefits to me is that in replying to you I've refined my understanding of the issue. 

Please note that I took care to indicate that figure was a guess - i didn't claim it as fact, and asked for help in refining it.

I'll try to explain how I got here. Please bear in mind I'm writing from first principles, so most of what I say you'll already know. 

In order for natural selection to operate there must be winners and losers. Of course 'winning' and 'losing' are only really important when it comes to mating - the point where genes are passed on; so all species need a method of picking the best and dumping the worst. In many animals various kinds of mating 'rituals' achieve this. Often the males fight to mate, sometimes maintaining their winning position with harems - strength, size and vigour being the selection criteria. A gentler mechanism is mating displays, where the female (usually) picks a partner on the basis of some feature that somehow indicates health, and/or dedication to supporting the offspring.

In all these the less strong tend to not find mates, or not find healthy mates, and their genes tend to go foward in the population in smaller measures. And so the single essential thing happens: the new generations are made up of a higher proportion of stronger genetic combinations than weaker ones.

This is essential because... the same thing is constantly happening in the predator populations. The disease and parasite organisms are constantly finding ways of improving their harvest from the host by their own natural selection (those that are best at it promote the proportion of their genes in the next generation by producing more/stronger offspring)

In the simpler life-forms a cruder mechanism ensures the same continuous selection of the best combinations. The weak simply do not survive to mate. (note what I said about coppice earlier today) And the same thing of course still applies to those species that have more advanced selection methods. If you die you cannot mate; to the extent that you are unhealthy you are less likely to mate and so on.

It is this basic understanding that I was applying to bees. There were several assumptions that justified the statements:

1) that (in bees) there is no mating ritual that natural selection could work with,

2) that mating competition is limited,

3) that, somewhere or other I've read that 'most swarms do not survive',

4) that it seems that generally speaking all species produce a proportion of non-viable offspring (think 'runts')

5) I read in an undergraduate text recently that 'over-fecundity' is a universal feature of living things. This is Mark Ridley's Evolution (2nd ed.), and a relevant passage reads as follows:

"The condition of 'excess fecundity' - in which females produce more offspring than survive - is universal to nature. In every species more eggs are produced than can survive to the adult stage."​and:

"The excess fecundity and subsequent competition to survive in every species provide the preconditions for the process (of natural selection)​
Ridley uses Darwin's work to make the point. Darwin chose a very slow breeding animal (as an extreme example) the elephant, and calculated its probable minimum rate of natural increase. Assuming the elephant breeds from age thirty to age ninety, it will have six offspring. If all survive then from the original breeding pair, after 750 years there will be nineteen million elephants! In most organisms the same kind of calculations are vastly more impressive. (Think rabbits!) 

Natural selection has 'discovered' that by producing many more individuals than are required to maintain the population, and having mechanisms to ensure that the healthier always increase their proportions at the expense of the weaker, species have the best chance of surviving in the face of the ever-evolving 'strategies' of their predators.

All that seems to me to add up to an understanding that allows us to think that it is normal that all queens should not survive. And for me its all part and parcel of my understanding of the natural processes of health maintenance - that is it fits perfectly with everything else I understand about natural selection, and I can't make sense of natural selection without it.

I don't know of any literature that applies the principle specifically to bees, but if we trust Ridley that it is universal to nature, then we must believe it does apply to bees. Nor, as I said, do I have access to statistics of normal survival rates. If we had those we could kind of join up the circle. 

Does that substantiate the statement adequately - or at least move us forward?

Mike


----------



## BoBn (Jul 7, 2008)

mike bispham said:


> so all species need a method of picking the best and dumping the worst. . . . . .
> And so the single essential thing happens: the new generations are made up of a higher proportion of stronger genetic combinations than weaker ones.


I disagree. 

Natural selection does not pick the best or the "fittest"
It picks the "good enough".

The new generations do not necessarily have a higher proportion of stronger genetic combinations. Environmental influences are never constant over time. Hopefully a population maintains a "good enough" gene pool to be able to survive various future selective pressures.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

deleted


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

BoBn said:


> Natural selection does not pick the best or the "fittest"
> It picks the "good enough".


Hi BoBn

I'm not sure that this isn't splitting hairs. The technical language speaks of the best fitted to the environment, or the best adapted. Certainly there is a preference for the 'better' over the 'worse' - however it is phrased.



BoBn said:


> The new generations do not necessarily have a higher proportion of stronger genetic combinations. Environmental influences are never constant over time. Hopefully a population maintains a "good enough" gene pool to be able to survive various future selective pressures.


I think we'd have to talk about what we mean by 'stronger'. You are right to pick up on these things - we do necessarily use shorthand when sketching out, and clarification is worthwhile.

I agree with your last two sentences unreservedly - I think.

Mike


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

And to think, we're only talking about sucrose and H2O (minus the secret coke formula).


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

Thanks Barry for the pointer to that article, and thanks to Allen Dick for his observations.

In trying to understand the 'simplicity' part about the pros and cons of feeding bees syrup, I have to admit that I got lost long before the Darwinian reference.

Is it as simple as letting the bees do their own thing, or do we need to get involved beyond that, considering we manage them like milk cows in pens?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Looks as if we are back on topic. Thanks.

> Is it as simple as letting the bees do their own thing, or do we need to get involved beyond that, considering we manage them like milk cows in pens? 

What anyone reading this has to know is that there are many beekeepers scattered all over with very different agendas. Some keep bees like "cows in pens", some use unconventuional hives, and some even keep a few skeps, although, they may not advertise the fact. Some are into their hives every day and meddling constantly. Some never even peek.

Some, like me keep bees for fun. I used to run thousands and have retired. Now, I just like bees and keep a few hives (around 35 right now). For the past few years, I just let them do their thing most of the time and hardly ever interfered. I plan to change that this year and return to some intensive management for splits, since they annoyed me this year by making a lot of honey, forcing me to extract.

Some are purists and idealists and romantics and are working on saving the world, one bee at a time  Others just do whatever they read in that month's Bee Culture or whatever someone suggests. Still others are dead serious about making money from bees and have all the angles figured. And lastly, we have those who like to read bee literature and try to figure out how it applies.

*There is no one, simple answer that is going to suit everyone. That is why we have different threads to suit the various interests *and that works well as long as we stay close to the topic and the topic here is whether sugar water is causing our disease problems, and related questions.

_I think we have proven fairly conclusively that sugar feeding is not per se harmful, and that sugar feeding can be beneficial. We have also pointed out that doing it wrong or at the wrong time can have pitfalls, and that, like anything we do, some understanding is required._

We have also proven that we will never satisfy everyone that it is a good practice, and some would rather see their bees die a horrible, sad death than intervene with sugar -- all in the name of selection.

Personally, I have seen it from all sides, and been exposed to the literature. As I said before, I have not fed sugar for many years now, but would not hesitate if it were indicated. From my extensive experience as a beekeeper and an inspector, I am convinced that _sugar feeding can be a useful practice, but is not necessary for good beekeeping_.

*How is beekeeping simple?* Each person has to decide what the goals are, what probable interventions may be needed, then let the bees do what they do. As I said before, when we run into trouble is usually when we expect too much from our bees or become too rigid in our thinking. 

Taking too much honey, doing too many manipulations or forcing our notions on the bees can bring us problems that not even feeding sugar syrup can save us from.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Should I add this as an addendum to the article? 

Good summation.

hoodwoods, I think the 'simplicity' part about feeding bees is to adjust your management style so you wouldn't normally need to feed. Again, beekeeping is local so you have to take your local climate and foraging details into account. I'm in an area where I always have an abundance of pollen and nectar and I keep bees for fun, not to make a living off. Lots of variables to the equation.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Barry, I think the article is still just fine and the phrase below covers it for those who can understand what it says.

" In today’s environment, some awareness of detection and prevention disease and predators is necessary in addition, but here again, simplicity and conservative approaches pay off in high success rates".

I think what Peter was suggesting is that with some mass die-off events, there is nothing one can do at this point, except hope and understand that die-offs do happen in the insect world. 

Recent ongoing increases in pressure from new pests and diseases also means that beekeeping is less simple, but the IMO basic message has not changed: Do not become a problem for your bees. 

Actually, to stay on topic here, I'll point out that the article in question does not even mention sugar feeding, since I consider it to be a non-issue.
---

t.S. I found the "ignore" function for the forum (under the User CP) and it works well -- as long as no one responds to the attempts to hijack threads and drag them off topic, thus adding to the diversion.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re. Is sugar water causing our disease problems?*



Allen Dick said:


> Recent ongoing increases in pressure from new pests and diseases also means that beekeeping is less simple, but the IMO basic message has not changed: Do not become a problem for your bees.


I'm not sure this is on topic: we should add to the list of pressures 'the effects of modern treatment-based management regimes.'



Allen Dick said:


> P.S. I found the "ignore" function for the forum (under the User CP) and it works well -- as long as no one responds to the attempts to hijack threads and drag them off topic, thus adding to the diversion.


In general terms I agree with the need to stay on topic. But quite what is off topic is often a rather subjective matter. Furthermore, it is often very useful to join up the dots, as it were, that is, to show how and why one topic relates to another. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re. Is sugar water causing our disease problems?*



Allen Dick said:


> I think what Peter was suggesting is that with some mass die-off events, there is nothing one can do at this point, except hope and understand that die-offs do happen in the insect world.


While I agree that mass die-offs are part of nature, it is also very useful to understand the mechanisms by which populations manage to gain 'immunity' and recover. It is then possible to do things like predict likely recovery rates, and develop strategies to help the process. And, especially, avoid actions that frustrate it. (Yes.. that describes exactly the situation we are in...)

Mike

PS Is this off-topic?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: Re. Is sugar water causing our disease problems?*

Of course it is off topic. 

There are plenty of other threads for this or anyone can start another entitled_,"Hypothesizing about what is causing our disease problems since we have established it is not sugar water"_

This thread is specifically asking if sugar water is causing our disease problems and it has been answered. There may be more answers, to that specific question, but goinmg on about everything else under the sun is simply muddying the water for those who come to read about sugar water.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

earlier in this thread (and in various other places in this forum and others), i brought up some of the work being done by tobias olofsson and alejandra vasquez.

i've also referenced the wittenberg university study looking at hfcs (and formic acid, etc) and how it affects the microbial culture.

without looking into these sources, one is not looking at the complete picture of what is known about sugar feeding, how it affects the environment in the hive, and how it effects the microbial culture.

proposed studies (like what was proposed in ABJ) will not tell us anything useful about the microbial cultures unlesss they are performed on bees that are not treated, not fed, and minimally managed (if managed at all).

deknow


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Great posts. I have learned a lot. 


If good research demonstrates that the bee's immune system is just as healthy consuming nectar or sugar water than I must be incorrect in my assumption. But if the immune system is impaired in any way due to sugar water, it would be reasonable to assume that the sugar water spring and fall feedings may contribute to decreasing the bees ability to resist pathogens. Thus the need for an increase in medication use. 

I would be very surprised if it was found that bees would have as healthy an immune system consuming sugar water than their natural nectar. It sure would be the exception rather than the rule. That is a refined product creating better health than a natural one. This has never been the case in human health to my knowledge but maybe the bees might be the exception to the rule. 

We may never find out the answer scientifically. A good experiment would be very hard to design. My vote until then is to consider the nectar in the spring and honey in the fall and winter as the best nutrition for the bees. If you want to believe the bee can gain the same quality of health on sugar water I guess that is possible but very unlikely.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> without looking into these sources,


Sorry Dean, but BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

there's nothing there but suggestions for "future research" I suggest we do it. You put half your hives on sugar syrup and half no syrup and tell us how they did


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> without looking into these sources, one is not looking at the complete picture of what is known about sugar feeding, how it affects the environment in the hive, and how it effects the microbial culture.

this has been duly noted and at this point it is conjecture whether this is of great importance or merely another thing that happens in the hive since merely being human sourced does not make it any different from all the other influences on the microbial culture which can come from the environment bee researchers are not prejudiced in favour of any particular position and have examined the issue quite dispassionately the problem is that experiments by their nature tend to be unnatural and have effects caused by their underlying assumptions for example the studies using sugar are not using sugar the way that an intelligent beekeeper would and are often comparing apples and oranges a pure sucrose solution is a pure sucrose solution and is a burden on the bees when incoming and being processed but not when being consumed


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

*Re: Re. Is sugar water causing our disease problems?*



Allen Dick said:


> There are plenty of other threads for this or anyone can start another entitled_,"Hypothesizing about what is causing our disease problems since we have established it is not sugar water"_


I agree with what Peter's (now deleted) post; but I also agree with you that staying on topic is important. I don't want to make life hard for future readers, and so will drop that line of questioning here. 



Allen Dick said:


> This thread is specifically asking if sugar water is causing our disease problems and it has been answered.


Far from it, I think it has been convincingly argued that feeding of sugar water might well weaken bees in some circumstances, and thus contribute to poor health. 

Mike


----------



## Merlyn Votaw (Jun 23, 2008)

I have had bees that starved to death and honey was available only a inch or two away. Sometimes I feed them Syrup and they won't take honey


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Since this thread has arisen again? I thought I would summarize a few points. 

Spring Nectar is the best source of food for bees period. In the spring they collect lighter honey. Evolutionary it probably is perfectly designed because of its phytochemical spectrum of phytonutrients is perfectly balanced to bring the bees out of the "hibernation" of winter. 

Fall Nectar might have chemical properties to allow the bee to know winter is ahead. It might be transition into winter. Who Knows? 

Honey is the storage of food and probably evolutionary designed to be the best source of food for winter. It might be perfectly designed to slow their metabolism and allow them to be best supported to get through winter. 

This is not my plan but mother natures plan. I think we should use research to discover the wisdom in mother nature. I do not think sugar water is an improvement in this plan. I believe sugar water contributes to a higher susceptibility to more decrease. This is because over time of taking in sugar in the absence of the possibly hundreds of phytochemical that are needed for a healthy immune system. 

I understand the resistance to the idea that sugar water is not healthy in the LONG TERM is probably driven by economics. I just add a few more hives to make up for any loss in honey. I can justify this cost because it is expensive to buy all those chemicals to keep them disease free. I also run three deeps for the base hive which makes upkeep easier. I know we all just want to do what is best for the BEE.


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

beginnerhives said:


> Spring Nectar is the best source of food for bees period. In the spring they collect lighter honey. Evolutionary it probably is perfectly designed because of its phytochemical spectrum of phytonutrients is perfectly balanced to bring the bees out of the "hibernation" of winter.


 Do you have a source for this assertion? Given that "Spring" nectars are going vary tremendously based on region and floral composition, I am not sure that a blanket statement like this is completely valid. Who has determined that it is the 'phytochemical spectrum of phytonutrients' that 'bring bees out of hibernation? I had thought that it was the availability of forage (indicated by it coming in) that stimulated the queen to begin laying. My bees are active and 'out of hibernation' sometimes for weeks before the first 'spring' nectar is available in my area. 

Side note: Bees aren't hibernating - hibernation is a specific physiological condition that occurs only in birds and mammals (and mostly in mammals). They are active overwinter, simply not foraging.



beginnerhives said:


> Fall Nectar might have chemical properties to allow the bee to know winter is ahead. It might be transition into winter. Who Knows?


Here again, there is no generic "Fall" nectar. Has anyone conducted research comparing the chemical compositions of nectars produced by plants in the spring vs. nectars produced by plants in the fall? For even one region of the country? Some plants (Day neutral plants) produce nectar and bloom all season - how do they fit in to these assertions? Do they change their nectar composition mid-season? 



beginnerhives said:


> Honey is the storage of food and probably evolutionary designed to be the best source of food for winter. It might be perfectly designed to slow their metabolism and allow them to be best supported to get through winter.


If honey is designed to slow bee metabolism, then why doesn't it do that during the rest of the year as they consume it? Honey is more likely (and simply) a REALLY high energy food - that would make it good for both high daily activity AND surviving periods of dearth. 



beginnerhives said:


> I do not think sugar water is an improvement in this plan. I believe sugar water contributes to a higher susceptibility to more decrease.


I am not sure that any beekeeper thinks that sugar water is better than natural forage. In fact, I believe it was Michael Palmer who cited a source that suggests feeding sugar (dry especially) overwinter can increase the likelihood of dysentery. I have seen that with my own hives and have adjusted my winter management accordingly. But starvation also contributes to higher susceptibility to more decrease - and usually a lot faster than feeding syrup.



beginnerhives said:


> This is because over time of taking in sugar in the absence of the possibly hundreds of phytochemical that are needed for a healthy immune system.


What do you mean by the terms 'phytochemical' and 'phytonutrient'? Is this a chemical that is produced using light? Or something else? Just because a plant uses light to produce a molecule, does not necessarily make that molecule special - Glucose is produced by plants using light - the same molecule is found in table sugar. They have identical chemical structures and properties - being produced by light does not make one glucose molecule superior to another.

Regards,

Mike


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Here are the chemical structures for three compounds.
Glucose
Sucrose 
Fructose
http://cdavies.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/simple-sugars-fructose-glucose-and-sucrose/
As you can see *there is a difference.*

*Sucrose* is the organic compound commonly known as table sugar and sometimes called saccharose. This white, odorless, crystalline powder has a pleasing, sweet taste. It is best known for its role in human nutrition. The molecule is a disaccharide derived from glucose and fructose with the molecular formula *C12H22O11. *
*Glucose (C6H12O6), *a simple sugar (monosaccharide), is an important carbohydrate in biology. Cells use it as a source of energy and a metabolic intermediate. Glucose is one of the main products of photosynthesis and starts cellular respiration. Starch and cellulose are polymers derived from the dehydration of glucose. The name "glucose" comes from the Greek word glukus (γλυκύς), meaning "sweet." The suffix "-ose" denotes a sugar.

Fructose, or fruit sugar, is a simple monosaccharide.
In humans, Fructose is a component of sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide derived from the condensation of glucose and fructose. Fructose is derived from the digestion of table sugar (sucrose).

Ernie


----------



## NDnewbeek (Jul 4, 2008)

Ernie,

Yes, there is a difference between sucrose, glucose and fructose. You misunderstand my post. 

I assert that there is no difference chemically between the glucose produced by a flower and the glucose found in any other source, commercially produced or otherwise. 

I make no assertion that sugar syrup is chemically the same as nectar - clearly it isn't. Only that sugars that are found in both syrup and in nectar are identical in structure (syrup glucose is the same as nectar glucose, syrup fructose is the same as nectar fructose, etc.) - not that syrup and nectar have the same sugar compositions.

Aside from that, to make claims that 'Spring' nectar has all of these other properties given to it from the 'phytochemicals' (without documenting sources or explaining the how the variation in 'spring' nectars affects this dynamic), lacks a degree of validity.

Mike


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> I believe sugar water contributes to a higher susceptibility to more decrease.


Since this thread is revived and the original poster is participating again, I'll raise a small point I tried earlier on.

I have seen estimates (which I can not document nor will I try) that feral populations of honeybees have decreased by up to 90% in recent years. Even if the number is smaller, perhaps even to a point consistant with kept bee decline levels, how is the original poster squaring these losses with his original assumptions that colony losses are attributable to the feeding of refined sugar? Surley no one is surreptitiously feeding sugar to hives in forest trees.

How do the assumptions and speculations made in the original post explain the parallel decline in both populations?

Wayne


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

waynesgarden said:


> Since this thread is revived and the original poster is participating again, I'll raise a small point I tried earlier on.
> 
> I have seen estimates (which I can not document nor will I try) that feral populations of honeybees have decreased by up to 90% in recent years. Even if the number is smaller, perhaps even to a point consistant with kept bee decline levels, how is the original poster squaring these losses with his original assumptions that colony losses are attributable to the feeding of refined sugar? Surley no one is surreptitiously feeding sugar to hives in forest trees.
> 
> ...


Lot of great posts. I will try to address everyone. First, This above point is a good one. Probably a lot of possibilities. I would think it would be inpossible to find this out. How can you count these numbers. Is it habitat related? Probably a complex answer if it is true. If it is true you do have a point. 

All the other posts took it in a different direction than intended. Sorry I was not very clear. My point was: Bees have evolved on nectar and honey. We pay a premium for honey. There is a reason for this. If we mixed up sugar water and tried to feed it to humans and told them it was the same sugars would they buy it. NO. 
Honey flavor, color, health properties are unique and most are still unknown as to the significance they play in human and bee health. I was just trying to point out mother nature probably has perfectly designed the entire system that has year round wisdom. When we change one aspect we have to consider the potential for harm to the WHOLE ecosystem. If you look at humans we refined whole wheat flower into pure glucose as starch. Everyone began buying white flower. They fortified it with the known vitamins and minerals. People still became degenerated on the stuff. That is when they discovered the hundreds of phytonutrients in plants that were previously were unknown to researchers. They missed this because they were so focused on the fact that sugar is sugar. 

I just think the same idea applies here. So I wanted to let the beekeepers become aware of it before we had scientific proof. I have learned a lot in these posts but it is clear the research has not been done that refutes this idea. 

Until the researchers can get some good research which gives us some good direction I maintain that sugar water is enough inferior to nectar as to cause a decreased immune function and therefor effecting the bee population possibly needing more medication to keep the bugs away.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

I think the commonsense line is good: nectar contains a whole lot of minerals - and probably other things - that can be utilysed by the growing and working bees. Sugar just contains sugars(s). Just like white bread isn't as good for you as brown (but is still good for you), necter will be a better food than sugar. 

On a different note (and in response to your question Wayne) almost everything that beekeepers do can and will affect feral bees, wherever apiary drones impregnate wild queens. The almost infinite complex of genetic traits that cause the different bee behaviours come solely from the parents. 

Wild bees are dependent on traits that 'tell them' things that apiary bees are less dependent on - like when to build up to catch local flows, what sorts of swarming rates will best ensure the flourishing of the local population, the right sorts of population levels to go into winter with. Apirary bees are often not in the least bit bothered by such things, as their keepers make these decisions for them, or help them overcome deficiencies. So as apiary drones impregnate wild queens, bloodlines that are suited to open living effectively undermine feral colonies by inappropriately altering their behaviours. 

This is most dramatically felt with respect to apiary bloodlines that are not resistent to the local pest and disease environment, where preservation of ill-adapted bloodlines through treatments condemns wild populations. But true, to a lesser degree, of other beekeeper activities like feeding - and general mollycoddling.

Mike


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Just a couple of points of clarification. Bees have not evolved on nectar and honey. Bees have evolved in relationship with pollens and nectars. Enzymes in their honey stomachs convert nectar into honey, for their consumption (and ours ). 

Second, no beekeeper I know espouses sugar syrup as a replacement for honey. We feed sugar syrup, as mentioned, to help a colony build up in a dearth, to prevent starvation, and sometimes as a vehicle to delliver medications. All conscientious beeks are aware of the inadequacies of sugar syrup compared to honey.

Third, is it a researcher's obligation to refute an assertion made? Or is it the obligation of the one making the assertion to prove it?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

StevenG said:


> Just a couple of points of clarification. Bees have not evolved on nectar and honey. Bees have evolved in relationship with pollens and nectars. Enzymes in their honey stomachs convert nectar into honey, for their consumption (and ours ).
> 
> Second, no beekeeper I know espouses sugar syrup as a replacement for honey. We feed sugar syrup, as mentioned, to help a colony build up in a dearth, to prevent starvation, and sometimes as a vehicle to delliver medications. All conscientious beeks are aware of the inadequacies of sugar syrup compared to honey.
> 
> ...


Good points. We all have to feed sugar water but I think the point is to do it as little as possible. I think the burden of proof should be with the people that deviate from natures wisdom. Assume the nectar is far superior to sugar water and that sugar water eventually has health consequences for the bees. Research just has to figure out how long bees can live on sugar water before becoming more susceptible to disease.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Here is a good research possibility.

See if feeding sugar water and pollen decreases the production of defensin-1 please look at the link. 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/foas-haa063010.php


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> We all have to feed sugar water but I think the point is to do it as little as possible.


Actually we don't. Its undoubtedly the case that commercial operators improve their margins by doing so, and many are no doubt reliant on that extra. (So if by 'we' you mean solely commercial operators, yes) Sideliners will likewise improve their yields through feeding. But a hobbyist in a good spot can simply supply nesting boxes and let the bees do their own planning, food-wise, and suffer the consequences if inadequate store are laid in. 

Such hands-off beekeeping will probably always be a minority occupation. Its worth bearing in mind however that proportion of hives kept by commercials and hobbyists varies wildly from country to country. 

I think over-reliance on sugar feeding is likely to weaken bees, but large operations will carry on doing it as long as the net effect is to fatten their bottom lines. Just the same as all the other unwelcome practices that prevent bees adapting to their environments, making treatments, monitoring and feeding not just beneficial but necessary for the survival of the ill-adapted stock. Its not really 'beekeeping' in my view - its 'bee-using'.

Mike


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Actually we don't. Its undoubtedly the case that commercial operators improve their margins by doing so, and many are no doubt reliant on that extra. (So if by 'we' you mean solely commercial operators, yes) Sideliners will likewise improve their yields through feeding. But a hobbyist in a good spot can simply supply nesting boxes and let the bees do their own planning, food-wise, and suffer the consequences if inadequate store are laid in.
> 
> Such hands-off beekeeping will probably always be a minority occupation. Its worth bearing in mind however that proportion of hives kept by commercials and hobbyists varies wildly from country to country.
> 
> ...


What a perfect conclusion to this long thread. Thanks.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Second, no beekeeper I know espouses sugar syrup as a replacement for honey. We feed sugar syrup, as mentioned, to help a colony build up in a dearth, to prevent starvation, and sometimes as a vehicle to delliver medications. All conscientious beeks are aware of the inadequacies of sugar syrup compared to honey.

I'm not one of them but actually there are many beekeepers who claim that sugar syrup is SUPERIOR food for bees and who will quote this study as "proof":

http://www.beesource.com/resources/...rup-as-maintenance-food-for-caged-honey-bees/


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> What a perfect conclusion to this long thread. Thanks.


We have reached no conclusion. You have merely found a post that you can embrace. 

For the many who see feeding as a tool to help through an emergency, nothing has been concluded.

Wayne


----------



## devdog108 (May 7, 2009)

Well I found this post on another website.....and if you look at the scientific data, there seems to be something that is dead on. I didn't say that I agree with feeding or not feeding...but the differences are VERY clear based on the nutritional data provided.

This is a direct quote:

to consumers, this would seem to discuss the pros and cons of people eating sugar or honey. 

However, to beekeepers, it goes beyond that, it expands to the pros and cons of honey bees being fed honey or sugar.

All over the internet you will find an argument about what to (and if to) feed sugar to honey bees and when it is (if it is) appropriate.

One of the most frequent hit upon aspects of the discussion is whether sugar is providing similar or enough nutrients that honey provides to the bees for a sustained period of time.

To see what honey has to offer I present this web page

To see what sugar has to offer, is this web page.

to summarize in this post, honey offers:

protein, vitamin C, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin b6, folate, pantothenic acid, choline, betaine,calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sodium, zinc, fluoride, manganese, selenium

granulated sugar offers:
calcium, potassium, selenium and fluoride. All of these in significantly less quantities than honey.

Now, in relation to humans, the amounts of all of these nutrients are in quantities considered to be not much more than "trace" amounts. not giving enough of any of them to be considered significant.

However, to a bee, what it insignificant to people, is more than enough for them.

I am not posting this information to be pro or against feeding sugar to bees.

That is a decision each beekeeper must make on their own. I do however want people to make informed, educated decisions.

While sugar does not offer nearly as much in terms of nutrition, it has been shown to offer at least enough to get bees through short periods of hard times until they could make or access honey.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >Second, no beekeeper I know espouses sugar syrup as a replacement for honey. We feed sugar syrup, as mentioned, to help a colony build up in a dearth, to prevent starvation, and sometimes as a vehicle to delliver medications. All conscientious beeks are aware of the inadequacies of sugar syrup compared to honey.
> 
> I'm not one of them but actually there are many beekeepers who claim that sugar syrup is SUPERIOR food for bees and who will quote this study as "proof":
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/resources/...rup-as-maintenance-food-for-caged-honey-bees/


I loved the article you posted. I can not believe from that study people can conclude sugar water is better than nectar/honey for bees. Think all this time in the millions of years of evolution the bees were suffering until man came along and saved them with sugar water. How did they survive with out us? 

The study of nutrition in humans has been plagued with errors. Many phytonutrients were passed off as unnecessary in human nutrition. That is why people focus on vitamins and minerals. Most people still live in such realities. 
I will post a few websites that demonstrate some researchers are looking in the right direction of the value of nectar. 

This answer is really complex and will not be uncovered in my lifetime. I just hope people get interested and begin looking. See the below just for fun. 

http://ce.groups.xtbg.cn/about

Please read the overview on that site. 

This next site sahows researchers are beginning to classify different honeys according to their diverse phytochemical structure. This powerpoint is quite interesting. 

http://www.apimondia.org/2009/bee-s...origin of honey - TOMAS-BARBERAN Katarina.pdf

Here is another that demonstrates to me how complex this issue really is. 

http://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/15/4/2911/pdf


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

But phytonutrients were not good for you until the scientists proved it... and neither were antioxidants. As a simple example, I heard many times over the last 50 years that "artificial vitamin C" (ascorbic acid) was identical as far as nutrition to natural vitamin C (from sources such as rose hips) and that there was "no scientific proof) that the biofavinoids, which always seem to accompany natural vitamin C, had any positive effect on humans... now of course they do, but then they did not. 

Of course Aspirin was not effective until the 1970s when they finally pinpointed some of how it worked, despite millinea of usage as willow bark, by every culture on the planet for as far back as any records can be found.

This is attitude is not new. Basic natural principles continue to be ignored and "pooh poohed" until the evidence is finally overwhelming, if they ever bother to gather any evidence...

Some things can be easily proven because the results are striking enough and the mechanisms involved simple enough. Biological organisms, however, have so many checks and balances and so much adaptability that proving one thing is harder or easier on them is very difficult. Not only because of the adjustments the organism makes, but also because of the complexity of the things involved and the impossibility of isolating just one thing and the improbability of only one thing being involved.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesscientificstudies.htm


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> But phytonutrients were not good for you until the scientists proved it... and neither were antioxidants. As a simple example, I heard many times over the last 50 years that "artificial vitamin C" (ascorbic acid) was identical as far as nutrition to natural vitamin C (from sources such as rose hips) and that there was "no scientific proof) that the biofavinoids, which always seem to accompany natural vitamin C, had any positive effect on humans... now of course they do, but then they did not.
> 
> Of course Aspirin was not effective until the 1970s when they finally pinpointed some of how it worked, despite millinea of usage as willow bark, by every culture on the planet for as far back as any records can be found.
> 
> ...


Right on. It is funny that not too long ago I was such a person. I had to see the science behind everything. I have begun to see the error in my ways. We use science to be the ultimate in advanced knowledge. It is used as a tool to discover the TRUTH in discovery. We feel confident and justified by following the latest science. 
Unfortunately too many times we have been dead wrong following such information. My undergrad was in biology and I really see the wisdom in the complex biological systems. Many times the more advanced understanding is to study the observation of nature. Many times these biological systems are too complex to boil it down to a few dependent and independent variables. Although science has its problems scientific thought is very useful. 
I think it is just a matter of time before we discover that sugar water does harm bees. How much does it take? I am sure good science will figure it out in the future as the techniques in science advance enough to study such a complex problem. I just hope this thread gives some ideas to the researchers and gets the ball rolling in a direction which will give us some insights into these complex bee issues. But until then my bet is with the evolutionary wisdom of the natural biological system which the bee is a small part of. Nectar rules.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Thanks for the link on that sugar study, Michael. If I read it correctly, they only conducted the study for 60 days. Personally I wouldn't trust any study on honeybees with a duration less than one complete year. Gotta get the ladies thru winter and into the next spring, you know. And mainly because the honeybee colony has been appropriately described elsewhere as a "superorganism". Thus it seems that health and mortality should be addressed on a colony basis, not an individual basis, and over a lengthy period of time. 

On a related issue, seems like more and more people are appreciating "natural" foods over "processed". E.g. butter versus margarine, local honey versus imports, pure cane sugar versus high fructose corn syrup :lookout: Any of you folks near Dublin, Texas, get some Dr. Pepper made with cane sugar and not hfcs. The taste difference is amazing. With sugar, less bite, much more smooth and tasty. So, have I stirred up things enough? 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## devdog108 (May 7, 2009)

Funny and interesting. I bought gatorade today and stamped on the \carry handle was a big black bold sign that said no HFCS......if its not good for us........ummmmm....:lookout:


----------



## NewbeeNnc (May 21, 2009)

What you mean Science is not the "TRUTH"? Don't tell Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> But phytonutrients were not good for you until the scientists proved it... and neither were antioxidants. As a simple example, I heard many times over the last 50 years that "artificial vitamin C" (ascorbic acid) was identical as far as nutrition to natural vitamin C (from sources such as rose hips) and that there was "no scientific proof) that the biofavinoids, which always seem to accompany natural vitamin C, had any positive effect on humans... now of course they do, but then they did not.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beesscientificstudies.htm


Sorry Mr. Bush I have to disagree with you. I do agree that ascorbic acid was not the only factor in scurvy. You are correct that researchers discounted the biofavinoids or (vitamin P) as they called it in the old days. Ya see ascorbic acid is needed to connect the cross linking in collagen. And the biofavinoids were active in holding epithelial cells together. So this synergy explains the full whole food prevention of scurvy. *But that was not the biggest scientific blunder in nutritional science. *

This is the biggest scientific blunder of this century in my opinion . 
Everyone knows vitamin E is alpha Tocopherol. 
That is incorrect. 
Alpha Tocopherol was misidentified in 1936. Almost everyone believed alpha tocopherol was vitamin E for over 70 years. What is funny was alpha tocopherol had almost nothing to do with the original function of Vitamin E. They isolated the wrong factor. After over a year of reviewing research I think I can count at least 5 huge scientific mistakes related to the history of studying vitamin E as alpha tocopherol. Probably more. 

So if that could happen then surely it is possible bee researchers might have missed something that is critical for the long term survival of bees which is in nectar but lacking in sugar water.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

NewbeeNnc said:


> What you mean Science is not the "TRUTH"? Don't tell Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.


Science can be defined as the systematic study of nature. Properly done it limits itself to carefully recording what is real, and trying to understand the reasons for the fixed relations between different sorts of things. In its modern form it is without doubt the most extraordinary tool mankind has ever assembled.

This extraordinary tool is a first class object of desire for all and any salesmen to co-opt. Snake-oil purveyors of every colour clothe their products in the language of science, and claim scientific backing for whatever it is they are flogging.

Its well worth working at discriminating between true science (the identification of what is real) and claims of scientific veracity that are nothing but sales talk. It isn't always easy.

Mike


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

mike bispham said:


> Science can be defined as the systematic study of nature. Properly done it limits itself to carefully recording what is real, and trying to understand the reasons for the fixed relations between different sorts of things. In its modern form it is without doubt the most extraordinary tool mankind has ever assembled.
> 
> This extraordinary tool is a first class object of desire for all and any salesmen to co-opt. Snake-oil purveyors of every colour clothe their products in the language of science, and claim scientific backing for whatever it is they are flogging.
> 
> ...


Great points. 

First, I like to determine who funded the study. Or where was the vested interest in the outcome. The nice thing about science is the fact often it can be manipulated with either numbers or experiment design. 
Drug companies not too long ago did not publish findings if they did not like the outcome. But now I THINK they have to publish all of them both positive and negative. Lots of variables which determine how good the science is. Everyone has a bias.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> Great points.
> 
> First, I like to determine who funded the study. Or where was the vested interest in the outcome. The nice thing about science is the fact often it can be manipulated with either numbers or experiment design.


I take it that's irony! That's a bad thing that attaches itself to proper science! Its abuse - snake oil salesman activity



beginnerhives said:


> Drug companies not too long ago did not publish findings if they did not like the outcome. But now I THINK they have to publish all of them both positive and negative.


No they still do it all the time. They even create fake jpournals in order to manipulate academic discourse. But of course they put it about - wherever and wherever they can - that that sort of thing is all in past... Perenially; always: follow the money. They are in business. We can safely predict how they will behave, even if we don't know all the mechanisms. And be clear: This Is Not Scientific Activity.



beginnerhives said:


> Lots of variables which determine how good the science is. Everyone has a bias.


Good science is science that records what is real while working flat out to eliminate any kind of bias whatsoever. It's basic method is to set clear experimental parameters, and publish them, together with all resulting data, so that anyone else in the world can try to precisely replicate the experiment, and test the results. The aim is to critique - other scientists will try to find fault with the experiment, or the conclusions drawn from it. They will try to make the same experiment and get get different results in order to show that the results are not sound. 

This, and only this is the process that is called 'science'. Anything that falls short of a highly structured, genuine and earnest attempt to improve knowledge and understanding of the world, *is not science*.

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If the overfeeding of any substitute for that which bees normally eat and use as fuel is a problem, then that is only a part of what is "causing our disease problems". I assume that this is a misnamed Thread. Since it is not just "disease" that is causing the die off of honeybees and other pollinators.

Diseases, pests and pollution of the environment outside of and inside of the bee hive all contribute to what we as beekeepers are experiencing all over the world.

Since feeding of sugar syrup had been done, as supplemental feeding in the fall and to get bees to draw foundation and to build up population in the spring, for many years before and a long time before we ever had varroa and everything that we have had since, I question as to whether judicious fall feeding alone can be blamed for honeybee colony mortality. Certainly there is more to it than that. Not that it might not add to the cause of the problems at hand.


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Diseases, pests and pollution of the environment outside of and inside of the bee hive all contribute to what we as beekeepers are experiencing all over the world.
> 
> I question as to whether judicious fall feeding alone can be blamed for honeybee colony mortality. Certainly there is more to it than that.


I agree. I'd add imbecilic 'breeding' practice, and put that at the top of your list. 

Mike


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

mike bispham said:


> I agree. I'd add imbecilic 'breeding' practice, and put that at the top of your list.
> 
> Mike


Can you define that term for me, beyond the obvious meaning of imbecilic? Are there some specific breeding practices that you have noticed that would be considered, in your opinion, to be imbecilic?

Back when I first started taking my bees to South Carolina for the winter, about 1,000 miles south of where I live near the New York State Border w/ Ontario, Canada, I couldn't afford to buy queens, so I made splits and allowed them to make their own. Certainly the gene pool couldn't have been too awfully wide w/ daughters of colonies potentially mating, at least in part, w/ brothers from those same hives.

That was a matter of necessity, but it may have been imbecilic too. Is that what you mean?


----------



## mike bispham (May 23, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Are there some specific breeding practices that you have noticed that would be considered, in your opinion, to be imbecilic?


I mean the practice of making new bees from sick bees. The systematic medication of bees, and subsequent free-mating, perpetuates vulnerabilities to pests and diseases, where both nature (through natural selection for the fittest strains) and proper husbandry (through careful selection of healthy and vigourous parents for the new generation - and the careful elimination of the weaker) ensure that populations constantly adapt to the ever-changing disease environment.

No other form of animal or plant husbandry attempts to ignore this basic mechanism, by which all populations are able to withstand pests and diseases. Beekeepers are unique -and uniquely stupid - in this respect.

See my website www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD for more detail 

Mike


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Since feeding of sugar syrup had been done, as supplemental feeding in the fall and to get bees to draw foundation and to build up population in the spring, for many years before 

And during all of those years many people have observed that it was probably bad...

"It is well known that improper diet makes one susceptible to disease. Now is it not reasonable to believe that extensive feeding of sugar to bees makes them more susceptible to American Foul Brood and other bee disease? It is known that American Foul Brood is more prevalent in the north than in the south. Why? Is it not because more sugar is fed to bees in the north while here in the south the bees can gather nectar most of the year which makes feeding sugar syrup unnecessary?"--Better Queens, Jay Smith


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Bees gather nectar most of the year in the south? How far south is this guy talking about? When my bees are in SC for the winter, I don't think they gather much nectar pretty much from November to February. So, unless my observations are off, I suspect his findings.

Michael, are you saying that the lack of those nutrients thatwe may not be aware of in honey that aren't there in sugar or hfcs are in such a deficet that the colony is more suseptible to AFB? Are rates of AFB higher in Northern States than Southern? Statistically speaking?


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

I think there are plenty of nutrients in honey that are not present in sugar that we are aware to make this obvious, devdog even noted this in his post earlier...



> to summarize in this post, honey offers:
> 
> protein, vitamin C, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin b6, folate, pantothenic acid, choline, betaine,calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, sodium, zinc, fluoride, manganese, selenium
> 
> ...


Though I agree,there may be even more than that about honey to which honey bees derive greater use than they can from sugar due to their body chemistry.

Big Bear


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

Just to give you a taste of how many phytochemicals are really in a plant here is a list of the KNOWN chemicals that are in pomegranate. Each year they are discovering more. I will attach the link to the phytochemicals in a carrot for comparison. Each plant has its own UNIQUE phytochemical spectrum. These chemicals give the plant structure,smell, taste, ect. Each plants nectar is composed of different combination's of phytonutrients. As you can see the vitamins and minerals are only a few of the phytochemicals present. How they exactly contribute to the health of humans and bees will probably not be discovered in our lifetime but they are still there. The phytochemicals give the different flavors of honey. 

carrot: http://sun.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/duke/farmacy2.pl


*"POMEGRANATE"*

ALKALOIDS 1,000-7,000 RT BK HHB WOI

ARACHIDIC-ACID SD HHB

ASCORBIC-ACID 40-636 FR CRC USA

ASH 5,000-35,858 FR USA

ASIATIC-ACID FL HHB

BETULIC-ACID BK LF WOI

BORIC-ACID 50 FR HHB

BREVIFOLIN LF PC36:963

BREVIFOLIN-CARBOXYLIC-ACID LF PC36:963

CALCIUM 30-650 FR CRC USA

CALCIUM-OXALATE 40,000 RIND FR WOI

CARBOHYDRATES 162,000-927,000 FR CRC USA

CAROTENE 0-2 FR CRC WOI

CASUARIIN BK RAA

CASUARININ BK RAA

CHLORINE 20 FR WOI

CASUARIIN PL 411/

CASUARININ PL 411/

CEREBROSIDE SD RAA

CHLOROGENIC-ACID FR RAA

CITRIC-ACID 8,100-12,300 FR JU WOI

COPPER 2 FR WOI

CORILAGIN LF RAA

P-COUMARINIC-ACID FR RAA

CYANIDIN-3-GLUCOSIDE FR RAA

CYANIDIN-3,5-DIGLUCOSIDE FR RAA

DELPHINIDIN-3,5-DIGLUCOSIDE PC RAA

DELPHINIDIN-3-GLUCOSIDE FR RAA

ELAIDIC-ACID 5,500 PC RAA

ELLAGIC-ACID BK CCO

ELLAGIC-ACID LF PC36:963

ELLAGITANNIN BK 411/

ESTRA DIOL SD RAA

ESTRONE 17 SD JBH WOI

FAT 50,000-200,000 SD HHB

FAT 1,000-38,000 FR CRC USA WOI

FIBER 2,000-232,000 FR CRC USA WOI

FIBER 224,000 SD WOI

FLAVOGALLOL PC RAA

FRIEDELIN BK WOI

FRUCTOSE FR WOI

GALLIC-ACID 900-40,000 PC RAA WOI

2-O-GALLOYLPUNICALIN LF RAA

GLUCOSE FR WOI

GRANATIN-A PC RAA

GRANATIN-B PC RAA

GRANATINS 15,000 LF RAA

GUMS 32,000 RIND FR WOI

3,6-(R)-HEXAHYDROXYDIPHENOYL-(ALPHA,BETA)-1C-4-GLUCOPYRANOSE LF PC36:963

INULIN 10,000 RIND FR WOI

IRON 3-16 FR USA

ISOPELLETIERINE BK WOI

ISOQUERCETRIN PC RAA

LINOLEIC-ACID SD HHB

MAGNESIUM 120 FR WOI

MALIC-ACID FR WOI

MALVIDIN FR RAA

MALTOSE FR WOI

MALVIDIN-PENTOSE-GLYCOSIDE FR JU WOI

MANNITOL 18,000 PC WOI

D-MANNITOL SD LF ST RT BK

MASLINIC-ACID FL HHB

METHYL-ISOPELLETIERINE BK JBH

METHYL-PELLETIERINE BK WOI

MUCILAGE 6,000-340,000 RIND HHB WOI

NEOCHLOROGENIC-ACID FR RAA

NIACIN 3-50 FR CRC USA

OLEIC-ACID SD HHB

OXALIC-ACID 140 FR USA

PALMITIC-ACID SD HHB

PANTOTHENIC-ACID 6-31 FR USA

PECTIN 20,000-40,000 PC RAA

PECTIN 2,700 FR WOI

PELARGONIDIN-3,5-DIGLUCOSIDE FL WOI

PELARGONIDIN-3-GLUCOSIDE SD RAA

PELLETIERINE BK WOI

(-)-PELLETIERINE PL JBH

1,2,3,4,6-PENTA-O-GALLOYL-BETA-D-GLUCOSE LF RAA

3,4,8,9,10-PENTAHYDROXYDIBENZO(B,D)-PYRAN-6-ONE LF PC36:963

PHOSPHATIDYLCHOLINE SD RAA

PHOSPHATIDYLINOSITOL SD RAA

PHOSPHATIDYLSERINE SD RAA

PHOSPHORUS 80-3,182 FR CRC USA WOI

PHYTOSTEROLS 170-892 FR USA

POLYPHENOLS 2,200-10,500 FR RAA

POTASSIUM 1,330-18,950 FR CRC USA WOI

2-(2-PROPENYL)-DELTA'-PIPERIDEINE LF WOI

PROTEIN 7,700-73,000 FR CRC USA

PROTEIN 25,000 SD CRC

PROTOCATECHUIC-ACID FR RAA

PSEUDOPELLETIERINE BK WOI JBH

PUNICACORTEINS BK RAA

PUNICAFOLIN LF PC36:963

PUNICALAGIN PC CCO

PUNICALIN PC CCO

PUNICIC-ACID 35,000-140,000 SD JBH WOI

PUNIGLUCONIN BK RAA

RESINS 45,000 PC RAA WOI

RIBOFLAVIN 0-4 FR CRC USA

SALICYLATES 0.7-3.5 FR JAD85:9501

BETA-SITOSTEROL BK HHB

BETA-SITOSTEROL 16-800 FR GAS

SODIUM 9-350 FR CRC USA WOI

SORBITOL HHB

STARCH 0 SD HHB

STEARIC-ACID SD HHB

STRICTININ LF RAA

STYPTIC-ACID FL RAA

SULFUR 120 FR WOI

TANNIN 1,700 FR JU WOI

TANNIN 104,000-336,000 PC RAA WOI

TANNIN 100,000-250,000 ST BK WOI

TANNIN 280,000 RT BK WOI

TANNIN 110,000 LF WOI

1,2,4,6-TETRA-O-GALLOYL-BETA-D-GLUCOSE LF RAA

THIAMIN 0-4 FR CRC USA

CIS-9,TRANS-11,CIS-13-TRIENE-ACID SD HHB

1,2,6-TRI-O-GALLOYL-BETA-4C-1-GLUCOPYRANOSE LF PC36:963

1,4,6-TRI-O-GALLOYL-BETA-4C-1-GLUCOPYRANOSE LF PC36:963

URSOLIC-ACID LF FR WOI

VIT-B-6 1-5 FR USA

WATER 350,000 SD WOI

WATER 780,000-823,220 FR USA WOI

WAX 8,000 PC WO


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael, are you saying that the lack of those nutrients thatwe may not be aware of in honey that aren't there in sugar or hfcs are in such a deficet that the colony is more suseptible to AFB? Are rates of AFB higher in Northern States than Southern? Statistically speaking? 

I am merely quoting Jay Smith to show that many people (I can find more quotes) have questioned the wisdom of feeding sugar and questioned the impact on the health of the bees during the entire time that sugar has been fed. I have no statistics. Jay Smith was a prolific writer in the bee magazines and answered many questions and spoke at many bee meetings. I assume these are his observations. But the pH of sugar is enough to make a difference. if you try to culture any of our bee diseases from chalkbrood spores to AFB spores to Nosema spores, all will culture well at the pH of sugar and not well at the pH of Honey. And that is ignoring nutrients all together and merely looking at the pH.


----------



## bimbyjim (Nov 15, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> >many people (I can find more quotes) have questioned the wisdom of feeding sugar.


I do not have the knowledge or experience to question the wisdom, but as a first year beek I can say that the syrup feeding has been my least favorite part of the hobby and I'd like to hear from others what the alternatives are. 

And what about those of you who are experiencing a drought as we are here in the Ohio Valley? Does this mean reduced nectar flow, which means I need to be feeding even more this fall?

Thanks everyone.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

Has anyone, or any study, tested to see if neonicotinoid insecticides are present, even in trace amounts in any of the things we feed our bees?

I have seen that every crop that is a source of carbohydrate or protein for honey bee feed, has one or more neonicotinoid insecticides labeled for its use thereon. Perhaps traces of these insecticides are persisting until they affect the bees that are eating the crops they were applied too.

If this is the case, it might explain any modern differences in the effects of feeding processed sugar to honey bees.

I wonder, too, if the foods destined to feed bees have ever been tested for any pesticide residue.


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

bimbyjim said:


> I do not have the knowledge or experience to question the wisdom, but as a first year beek I can say that the syrup feeding has been my least favorite part of the hobby and I'd like to hear from others what the alternatives are.
> 
> And what about those of you who are experiencing a drought as we are here in the Ohio Valley? Does this mean reduced nectar flow, which means I need to be feeding even more this fall?
> 
> Thanks everyone.


I do not think there is a substitute food for bees. I think the fall feeding is probably the most dangerous to bees as far as making it through the winter. I am in the north so my solution is to run three deeps and only one supra. Many people, it seems, extract in the fall and then feed to make sure they have enough sugar to survive the winter. I think the winter is the hardest on the bees, especially if they have a mite problem. To make sure they have GOOD QUALITY FOOD for winter I extract after the winter. I do not extract in the fall but leave the honey for the bees. In the late spring or early summer when the top deep and supra are full I extract both. Then they have the rest of the summer to build up that deep and supra. 

Location probably has a lot to do with the quality and quantity of nectar for the best bee health. A diverse phytochemical spectrum of plant nutrients which would best support the ecology of bees would be a must. 

This theory is not based on much experience so I might change my practices in years of bad nectar flow. But I would think a bad year I just would not extract as much but there would always bee some for the bees from the previous year. 

Well on to the learning experience.


----------



## waynesgarden (Jan 3, 2009)

beginnerhives said:


> To make sure they have GOOD QUALITY FOOD for winter I extract after the winter. I do not extract in the fall but leave the honey for the bees. In the late spring or early summer when the top deep and supra are full I extract both. Then they have the rest of the summer to build up that deep and supra.


I don't know if you actually done this since you just started with bees but I've had honey crystalize solid by spring.
Added: BTW, where did your term "supra" come from?

bimbyjim: The options are 

1. Leaving enough honey for the bees if they've made enough to survive on through the winter.

2. Feed them 2:1 sugar syrup in the fall to allow them to stock up for the winter.

3. Feed granulated sugar as emergency feed.

4 Let them starve.

I don't feel bad about helping my bees out with sugar syrup if they need it to survive. You shouldn't either. No one's proved to me that the syrup is suddenly kills our bees. Starving them certainly will.

Wayne


----------



## beginnerhives (Feb 22, 2009)

waynesgarden said:


> I don't know if you actually done this since you just started with bees but I've had honey crystalize solid by spring.
> Added: BTW, where did your term "supra" come from?
> 
> bimbyjim: The options are
> ...


That is a good point. I did not know honey in the comb could crystallize. Does it uncrystallize when it gets hot out? Do the bees eventually work it and make it honey again? Last winter my strong hive with three deeps made it through the winter with the top deep full of honey. I added some a small honey super on top and when they both were full again I extracted. The rest of the summer they filled them both again. I am taking the super off and splitting it between two swarms from early July to make sure they have enough food for the winter.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Honey that crystalizes in the comb, usually aster honey here in the NE, does not reliquifiy in the comb when temperatures rise. Crystallized honey is still honey. Maybe you meant become liquid again. The bees will eat it, but they have a harder time doing so.

Which they don't have w/ sugar syrup or corn syrup.


----------

