# Bee Forage Crude Protien and AA Breakdown



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Common Bee Forage Plants Showing Percentages of Crude Protein (% of sample) and Amino Acid breakdown (% of protein)


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Why would they not represent a value for Tryptophan? Isn't that value necessary to determine the pollens AA profile required for a bee's diet?


----------



## drlonzo (Apr 15, 2014)

Does someone have an actual list of the necessary amino acids and proteins that are required by bees? 

What I mean is that the list above is great as far as what is contained in these pollen sources but without an actual understanding of what is required by the bees it's hard to understand what is or isn't good for their diets. JMO

:::: Sometimes it helps if I read close.. lol I see it now... :lookout:


----------



## Ret Sgt. Robert Yates (Dec 5, 2014)

Look in the Middle of the Graph at the "Yellow Line" it says "Bee Requirements"

Best Regards


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Which according to deGroot's ratio, Tryptophan would equil 1.

And I am assuming the tryptophan values for the other pollens must also equil 1, and have corresponded all the other AA values as such.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Ian said:


> Why would they not represent a value for Tryptophan? Isn't that value necessary to determine the pollens AA profile required for a bee's diet?


From Fat Bees, Skinny Bees

"The tryptophan levels in pollens has not been tested by many researchers, due to the need to conduct separate chemical analysis and the added extra cost to the projects."


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Thanks Allen! 

Is tryptophan not the most important AA value to know? When determining the nutritional value of the pollen to the bees?


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Ian said:


> Is tryptophan not the most important AA value to know?


Is it the most important, or, is it just the one DeGroot chose as his baseline, possibly because it's the smallest required, so he measured everything else as a ratio against that one.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Randy Oliver;
"deGroot never implied that a formula should be 1.00% trypotophan–rather, divide all other amino acid weights (or percentages) by the weight/percentage of tryptophan, to obtain their relative value. For example, brewers yeast runs about 0.62% tryptophan and 1.7% threonine. So you’d divide 1.7 by 0.62 to obtain a ratio of 2.74:1 threonine:tryptophan, which is close to deGroot’s suggested ratio of 3:1."

So how does this apply when looking at pollen protein values without the tryptophan % ?


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Ian,

Thank you for posting that very interesting chart. Source?

Enj.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

One of those facebook things. Taking it at face value.

Trying to figure it out... The only values relevant to the chart is the crude protein , cover the names and crude protein values and the rest does not tell you anything .


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Ian, maybe what you are looking for is not on this chart.
But thanks for posting the pollen source. I think as long as the % is above what is
required by the bees then what you are looking for should be met. Corn is way below their requirement.
Lupine is high in the chart and easy to grow here. I will order some seeds to broadcast 
onto the local creeks and fields for this summer's colorful blossoms. You think the Italians can reach
the flowers to collect the pollen? Thanks you for sharing.


Lupine pic:


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian, Is it me or are these numbers in this chart seem high to me?
P.S. Maybe I need another cup of coffee this morning.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Lol, I'm on my third... But that's because of 5 kids!

For me, looking at the chart, all AA levels are adequate except the crude protein values. 
These AA are represented as % of crude protein, and they compare that % value to deGroots AA profile. Which is wrong because deGroot uses his numbers as a ratio to tryptophan, making the information on this chart meaningless, right?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian, if you add up the numbers on the bee requirements they add up to over 20%, the numbers don't add up right, or is it the ratio there talking about?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I notice that dandelion is lower than corn, yet bees seem to build up on it in the spring.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

It would be nice if tryptophan values were included so that the graph could actually be understood. 
Dandelion is extremely low in tryptophan which cut the crude protein making it close to rice cakes for bees. As I inderstand thinggs


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian said:


> It would be nice if tryptophan values were included so that the graph could actually be understood.


Now were loggin, well said.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Beepro, Lots of lupins in New Zealand south island, never saw a bee on them, but also lots of bugloss full of bees. For what that is worth.
Johno


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

If wanting to understand bee nutrition a little more "Fat Bee Skinney Bee" is a must read .Joe Traynor gave me a copy a few years ago.


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

If those numbers are a ratio relative to tryptophan then number is one. But it doesn't say. the title is a little misleading the title says percent. when you do a complete amino acid profile they will list essential and non essential and it takes 2 or 3 tests to get them all. I've thought DeGroots numbers were a ratio.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

David, can you email that link fat bees skinny bees to my email. Or if anyone else has relevant material send to my email found at ;
www.Stepplerfarms.com


----------



## PeterP (Feb 5, 2014)

Here is the canola details from fat bee skinny bee for comparison. 
Regards Peter


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Those numbers run close to the same as the AA values on this chart. That 24% protein is the reason why my hives come off canola fields with hives packed full of brood. 

Anyone have a tryptophan value that canola usually hangs around at? Surely someone has done one test to find that value. 

Is it just me? Am I missing something completely obvious to everyone else here? 
The main value deGroot based his AA profile on is missing in pretty much every analyses of pollen I have seen...

My computer is down, can't view fat bees skinny bees yet. Does the answer to my question lay in that document?


----------



## pppswing (Dec 19, 2013)

tryptophan is not used to build protein.
It's a kind of energy for neurotransmitter of serotonin for brain.

This might be important to produce brood jelly as well as boosting the hive.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

> Anyone have a tryptophan value that canola usually hangs around at? 

This reference has Min Max and Avg for "Canola meal, solvent-extracted" 

http://www.feedipedia.org/node/12498
You can use their _Search _tool to find other references.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/downloads/05-054

Fat bees Skinny bees


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Thank for the input! 

Rader, I am assuming canola pollen has tryptophan valued at a % as high as canola meal,? That would be an unlikely comparison.

pppswing, good summary of tryptophans function. 
tryptophans purpose still serves as an essential part in the Diet, as it represents the limiting AA in the bees diet. 

After quickly reading through, Fat bees skinny bees, they do not get into detail analyzing these essential AA.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

There is this http://www.honeybee.com.au/Library/pollen/brassica.html
But nothing for Tryptophan. I read somewhere that canola pollen contained all the esential amino acids needed by bees, but cant remember where.

OT I have to assume the top producers of pollen sub have taken all this into account in formulating their feed. That seems to be the case in Randy Olivers recent study of subs. But it would be good if they were a little more open about the ingredients in their mixes.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I have been briefly chatting with Randy Oliver about the absence of tryptophan in the pollen analysis. He suggested reworking deGroots work using Histidine as the limiting instead of tryptophan as it is one of the eAA that showed the less variability. 
This is Randy's deGroot tweaked AA ratio using Histidine as the first limiting instead of tryptophan, which he provided to me;

A.a.	Suggested proportion
Histidine	1
tryptophan 0.5
Arginine	2
Isoleucine	2
Leucine	3
Lysine	2.5
Methionine + cysteine	1
Phenylalanine + tyrosine	2
Threonine	2
Valine	2.5


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

And there we go...
Reading the chart using Histidine as the limiting, dandelion shows it's lacking in most the AA whereas canola shows balanced AA right across.
...not considering tryptophan of course...


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

I don't know if reinventing the wheel is the way to go. Getting the tryptophan numbers just takes one more test and yes a little more money that some my not want to spend. this picture was taken on the coast we have last week, this is






what the bees really need!


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

A friend of mine talked to a researcher from England and one of her projects is to review DeGroots work.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

davidsbees said:


> A friend of mine talked to a researcher from England and one of her projects is to review DeGroots work.


David keep us updated on her work. Randy Oliver showed me the work he has been doing on slightly adjusting deGroots AA values. I think he will be publishing his stuff righ smartly.

From the picture you provided, do you know the sources of the pollen deposited?


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

They are close to city so to many to guess. I think bees are like dogs I got some samples of a new feed and tried a side by side a they would not touch the new feed. I think once they acquire taste for a feed is hard to get them to change. I'll try to get e picture today.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

No wonder they are ignoring the feed with hives packing pollen away like that !


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I am still wondering about feeding patties, at present my bees are taking a light syrup about 1 sugar to 2 water and are not touching patties near the syrup feeder that is Megebee patties and 50/50 Beezilla/chickpea flour patties but will carry away in their baskets as much chickpea flour as they can. So does putting the patties in the brood boxes force the bees to consume the stuff.
Johno


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

My bees won't take patties very well unless the patties are placed very close to brood. I lay the pattie on the top bars crossways and this helps zero in on the early brood nest. If your patties are old and dried up, the bees may not take them. I really like the Global Patties I get as the bees really seem to like them. I have bought patties in the past thru the mail that the bees just would not touch.



johno said:


> I am still wondering about feeding patties, at present my bees are taking a light syrup about 1 sugar to 2 water and are not touching patties near the syrup feeder that is Megebee patties and 50/50 Beezilla/chickpea flour patties but will carry away in their baskets as much chickpea flour as they can. So does putting the patties in the brood boxes force the bees to consume the stuff.
> Johno


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I guess it must be the nurse bees consuming the patties in the hive and the foragers outside just go for nectar and pollen.
Johno


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Ian some thoughts about this thread. I am not a nutritionist nor have I study this topic in any depth so I may be out to lunch for some of these comments.

I think you are getting limiting and representative mixed up. A representative aa is starting point for developing ratios for the aa profile. It doesn't matter how you approach this, the ratio should be the same. In the chart you supplied the ratio was developed as a percentage aa with respect to the crude protien present. The yellow line is the minimum percentage of crude protein and the minimum percentage of each aa for bees to survive. Pollen near the top of the chart deliver more of a given aa at a certain percentage than pollens near the bottom of the chart with the same percentage of crude protein.

The limiting aa for a given pollen is the aa that will be used up first. A pollen with a high crude protein percentage and has an imbalance of aa will usually be more beneficial than one with a low crude percentage even if the aa are balanced and have more total aa available.

I guess bees could increase their intake of low crude protein to get enough aa but I don’t know if they compensate that way. I doubt they do.

Different testing methods and different pollen sources give very different results. I have seen crude protein levels for dandelions as high as 21% in 2011 paper. Dandelions are still a great spring flower IMO if other sources of protein are available to make up for the deficient aa. Spring build up clearly shows this. Sunflowers in monoculture situations producing winters bees are much more concerning.

If you haven’t done a thorough read of Fat Bee Skinny Bees, do so. Great overview from a reputable source.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Thanks for the comment Allen! I'm not a nutritionist either and I am two weeks deep into understanding the details. I appreciate the feedback.
Yes you are right. I'm using the term limiting instead of the term reference when looking at deGroots AA ratio. The reference is not the limiting, but rather the value used to normalize an AA ratio to one AA in the profile. Tryptophan was used by deGroot as the reference and Randy reworked and tweaked deGroots' work to use Histidine to base the AA ratio's off. As I understand it these are the AA that show the least variability between the pollen sources.

Based on deGroots' reworked AA profile, using Histidine as the reference when looking at dandelion values provided from the chart; pretty much every AA listed shows a deficiency with Valine representing 1.8:1, which is 75% off deGroots' suggested ratio. Valine being the limiting AA in Dandelion's profile meaning only 75% of that crude protein is being utilized, aka wasted digestible protein. Not only that, but most of the other AA listed for Dandelion fall in to the 80% usable category, this analysis of Dandelion shows an extremely deficient pollen.
The bees would be looking at external sources to make up for that Valine deficiency, and in our case, we have strings of alternate sources of pollen coming in at the same time to supplement that deficiency and use the otherwise wasted protein.

Thanks for clearing up my terms, its extremely important when trying to understand these kinds of processes.

But in the chart, deGroots values they list in the chart mean absolutely nothing compared directly against the pollens AA values unless those AA values are converted into deGroots AA ratio. deGroots numbers do not represent a % compared to total protein, they represent a normalized value using deGroots ratio. I find the chart useful, but extremely misleading on how they presented the values listed "bee requirements"


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Fat bee skinny bee. quoted;

"measurement is a ratio of the amino acid to
the total nitrogen content in the pollen and
not a quantative measurement based on
the dry weight of pollen. "

"Pollen with a low CP% and limiting in one
or more amino acids is a much greater
concern than pollens with high CP% limited
in one or more amino acids. "

" for every 10 grams of protein
required by the colony, it was necessary
for that colony to consume 48 grams of
pollen containing 30% crude protein. If the
crude protein levels of pollen available to a
colony are reduced to 20%, then the same
colony would need to consume 72 grams
of pollen to achieve the same performance
levels. "


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Ian said:


> Fat bee skinny bee. An extremely good overview and well presented document on honey bee nutrition.
> 
> "measurement is a ratio of the amino acid to
> the total nitrogen content in the pollen and
> ...


These statements puzzle me. From a nutritional standpoint, it doesn't matter so much if it is low in protein or high, but rather is it somewhat balanced? A balanced diet, for all nutrients, is better overall regardless if it is "high" or "low". Most people make the mistaken assumption that an animal can and will just consume more of an unbalanced/deficient diet to get what they need. However, what happens to the unbalanced/utilizable portion of the diet when they consume more? They are still utilizing the same percentage of the diet. Look at it another way. Say the unbalanced/utilizable portion consumed is "sand". Say this sand makes up 40% of the diet. What happens if you eat more of the diet? You get more "sand" in your system. What happens to that "sand" over time. You get a bellyache, eat less and eventually starve because your body can't utilize a major portion of your diet.

Based on my understanding of deGroot's work, it is an approximation of the ideal amino acid ratios fed to adult bees in a caged environment using longevity as a metric. Recalculating the ratios based on another amino acid is fine, but still doesn't change how the values were initially determined. Most of the beekeepers I talk with feed sub to stimulate colony growth and brood development, which places an entirely different demand on the bees and the colony. deGroot's work was very detailed, but should be viewed in its context. 

Ian, look at the dietary changes your animals incur for gestation, lactation, active calf growth and basic animal maintenance.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

JSL said:


> Based on my understanding of deGroot's work, it is an approximation of the ideal amino acid ratios .... Recalculating the ratios based on another amino acid is fine, but still doesn't change how the values were initially determined.... deGroot's work was very detailed, but should be viewed in its context.



I need a starting point somewhere. Randy switch the reference to Histidine for me as well as slight tweaking (work to be published on this subject) otherwise how am I to determine the protein deficient pollen?

Joe how do you meet the different dietary demand put on the bees to achieve your stimulation and development targets? In what way are you changing the bees diet to meet those changing needs?


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Ian said:


> I need a starting point somewhere. Randy switch the reference to Histidine for me as well as slight tweaking (work to be published on this subject)
> 
> Joe how do you meet the different dietary demand put on the bees to achieve your stimulation and development targets? In what way are you changing the bees diet to meet those changing needs?


What's the point in switching deGroot's ratios to a Histidine base? They are ratios... Once you calculate the relationship you can determine any of them and tweaking them probably will not change much in the whole scheme of things. Look at the natural variation bees encounter each week of the season. Pollen sources vary widely and bees function on the long term average. I do not know why so much time and energy is focused on protein content. There is so much more that goes into a diet other than protein. That being said, most beekeepers appear purchase sub based on economics and availability.

deGroot's values are 60 years old and I am not aware of a current diet used in agriculture today that is based on 60 year old data. As analyses, genetics and our understanding of nutrition have changed, so have the diets.

The primary goal is to make supplemental food available. If the bees need the nutrients and energy, make sure it is in front of them. The overall formulation does not change much based on timing, but supplementation and availability does.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I appreciate the feedback Joe



JSL said:


> What's the point in switching deGroot's ratios to a Histidine base? They are ratios... Once you calculate the relationship you can determine any of them


Of course, I'm not reworking the ratio, I'm using Histidine as the reference as it was suggested to me that AA shows the least variability making normalizing the ratios off it natural. Are you reading the protein profiles differently than I am? 



JSL said:


> Look at the natural variation bees encounter each week of the season. Pollen sources vary widely and bees function on the long term average. I do not know why so much time and energy is focused on protein content. There is so much more that goes into a diet other than protein.


To a point that I am extremely interested in. To continue the conversation on to fatty acids, lipids, vitamins minerals required in the bees diet would be welcomed here. 



JSL said:


> deGroot's values are 60 years old and I am not aware of a current diet used in agriculture today that is based on 60 year old data. As analyses, genetics and our understanding of nutrition have changed, so have the diets.


Shal you share? The only specific dietary references that I have been able to dig up is deGroot's 60 year old suggested AA profile. Vit min, fatty acids basically are spoken of generally...
So as our understanding of nutrition changed, how do you equate that into changing the diet suggested for honeybees?


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

Ian,
This web site has great info on the composition of pollen. I used it extensively in building my sub.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Thanks David!

They value the tryptophan in their sample at 1.6%


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

I may be crazy, but some things do not add up here. First, we must devipher the ground rules. Allen wrote:

I guess bees could increase their intake of low crude protein to get enough aa but I don’t know if they compensate that way. I doubt they do.

Does anyone know the true answer to this question? I understand the "build up of sand" analogy, but until the question is answered, we do not know to rank a lower balanced pollen above or below a higher total aa unbalanced pollen.

Secondly, does any one know if bees can synthesis any or all of the amino acids? School was a long time ago, but it seems to me humans can synthesis some(12), but not all(8). 

Third, if dandelion pollen is so bad, how come most peoples bees do so good on it?

Some thing does not add up in my noggin.

Crazy Roland


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

If I understan this correctly say a eucalyptus pollen is missing one essential AA like tryptophan then all the pollen they collect would be useless even with a protein level of 20% I'm not a expert just a curious beekeeper. ???? I also thought that why the Australians were ahead of the game in bee nutrition.???


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Roland, I'm just reading the dandelion AA analysis provided on the chart. I'd like to see other dandelion analysis to compare. So far my searches come up with similar values. 

A point to remember about dandelion pollen, they generally flower during other high valued pollen bloom which would help bring balance to the equation.

If a bee needs to consume twice as much feed to get the protein it needs, that's more work to collect it, digest it and more waste to rid. 
Waste of digestible protein


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

JSL said:


> What's the point in switching deGroot's ratios to a Histidine base? They are ratios... Once you calculate the relationship you can determine any of them and tweaking them probably will not change much in the whole scheme of things. Look at the natural variation bees encounter each week of the season. Pollen sources vary widely and bees function on the long term average. I do not know why so much time and energy is focused on protein content. There is so much more that goes into a diet other than protein. That being said, most beekeepers appear purchase sub based on economics and availability.
> 
> deGroot's values are 60 years old and I am not aware of a current diet used in agriculture today that is based on 60 year old data. As analyses, genetics and our understanding of nutrition have changed, so have the diets.
> 
> The primary goal is to make supplemental food available. If the bees need the nutrients and energy, make sure it is in front of them. The overall formulation does not change much based on timing, but supplementation and availability does.


Not only deGroot's ratios 60 years old, I don't think they have much relevance to average beekeeper beyond acquiring some trivia knowledge. The depth of knowledge, the hours of research and amount of required testing is beyond most. As Joe has stated numerous times on beesource; bee nutrition is some much more than just protein. 

For beekeepers what is important is which pollen substitute (commercial or beekeeper mixed) can artificially sustain bees the best, which will produce the most brood, promote longevity, best develop the hypopharyngeal gland, etc. It doesn't matter if the protein profile match a 60 year old protein profile or a newer one. It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter if it doesn't match a given nutrient profile. What's important that it produces great results and is economically. Hopefully it does match the latest research into nutrients. If not, there's a wonderfully opportunity for some researcher to become the next deGroot.

Knowing the protein profiles and limiting aa acids is mostly trivia for the average beekeeper as well. Knowing which pollen are deficient and which are complete is very useful. I know dandelion is low on some aa but don't care because there are enough other pollens around when it is blooming to balance the aa. Sunflower in a monoculture situation as the last source of pollen before winter concerns me greatly. I'd like to see some research on winter survival related to sunflower and sub vs sunflower only.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Allen, deGroot is irrelevant and doesn't matter if the nutrient profiles are met but important for commercial or beekeeper mix substitute to meet the latest reaserch into nutrients ? ?

Has someone developed and updated honeybee protein profile? And where is there any "more" to bee feed nutrition other than "generally understood" and "not fully understood yet" 

Randy suggested he has been working a bit on deGroots work, tweaking the AA ratios a bit and including a couple more as essential. That is far as detail I get in regards to bee nutrition. 

My nutritionist can lay my cattle operations complete diet out on the table. It's not wrong to think we can understand the bees diet the same.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Nope. I am saying I hope subs are developed on the latest research and supporting foundational research like deGroot's. I don't think anyone would develop a sub without research. But, the sub better stand field test validation. I will take a field test validated sup over a sub strictly matched to a theoretically nutrient profile. A couple of the commercial subs released in the last 10 years haven't done that well in comparative field tests.

Is there more to bee feed nutrition? Lots. Mostly with google we see interpretation of the research. You need institutional access or big funds to see or subscribe to much of the original research.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Okay, I understand what your saying from that last response.


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Allen Martens said:


> Not only deGroot's ratios 60 years old, I don't think they have much relevance to average beekeeper beyond acquiring some trivia knowledge. The depth of knowledge, the hours of research and amount of required testing is beyond most. As Joe has stated numerous times on beesource; bee nutrition is some much more than just protein.


Allen, thank you! At times, I am uncertain if beekeepers pickup up on that. 

To me, the key is balance, of everything that goes in. Bees can handle some imbalance. We all can and most is simply excreted as waste. But in extreme cases, the unutilized portion becomes an issue as it accumulates in the system. My dad liked to ask grad students taking their candidacy exams, what happens when an animal experiences a dietary deficiency? It is more involved than one would initially expect.

Monoculture pollen analyses are interesting, but provide limited information in the broader scheme of things. Colonies function on the long term average. Dandelion pollen is a prime example. By itself their are several limiting amino acids, but combined with other sources things work out. For example, if you work off of deGroot's ratios and use Histidine as a base, Arginine and Lysine should be double the amount. In composite pollen sample anlayses, Lysine is just a hair over double, but Arginine is about 20% shy of deGroot's proposed ratio. My point is, don't get too caught up in individual amino acid levels. Use multiple protein sources as David does and move on.

Ian, I say this sincerely, if you have an interest in nutrition, order a introductory level college nutrition text and spend some time going over it. Animal nutrition seems more cut and dry than say human nutrition. I suspect it is because the true metric in animal nutrition is animal productivity and not consumer purchasing power.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian said:


> My nutritionist can lay my cattle operations complete diet out on the table. It's not wrong to think we can understand the bees diet the same.


Ian, the bees (hives) are a lot different imo. You can isolate cattle, you can ear tag each one, you can control what they eat, ect... The bees.... you have a lot of variables, the young feeding the old, changing microbes all the time with in the hive. Comparing cattle to bees is like target practicing blind folded. IMO, it's very tough to get a clear view in the hive. We are getting closer, but we are still miles away. All this pollen sub testing between hives....... if you look at the numbers there really pretty close.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I am certainly not a nutritionist and I doubt I am trying to sound like one. Looking at a pollen protein chart and trying to figure out what it is saying is innocent enough... trying to understand why the different types of pollen are valued a certain way is only the natural logical thing to do when looking at a chart. 

Thanks to the feedback I have gotten back from many. My intentions are innocent enough, I'm not trying to break the bank... From this converstion I have been able to read the chart and make sense of it. I understand nutrition is a complex subject and way over my head but looking at Amino Acid profiles and *simply* translating them into *useful information* using deGroots suggested bee dietary requirements is pretty _cool_. Not only does an exercise like this submerse the mind into nutrition but it naturally focuses the mind on bee health and starts the process of developing a strategy to improving our hives overall health.

To Keith's point "target practicing blind folded", taken to point. Nobody is asking for absolute answers here, just general discussion. Afterall this is what makes forums like this work. That riffleman can get out a pretty good shot if there is someone standing beside.

Peace man , love the conversation!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Keith Jarrett said:


> a lot of variables, the young feeding the old, changing microbes all the time with in the hive.


Its those changing conditions that has really perks my interest. These seasonal changes throughout the colonies life (growth period) seem to have immediate response from the beehive colony. It is a response ingrained into their instinct of survival and those seasonal changes influence extreme stress on the colony. Probably these points in time where disease finds the most opportunity. 

I know your'all getting tried of my animal analogies... to bad, this is my post!  One of our objectives on the farm when switching feed rations is to do it over a period of time, days, not immediate. A switch of ration exerts a huge amount of stress on the stock and we find at those times we see higher levels of poor performance and sickness. Heck, why not equate the same principle to bees!! Makes sense to me. Just an impossible endevour as we are all aware. 

But to that point, targeting times of mal nourishment should show a positive response to the overall out come of the honeybee hives health.


----------



## apis maximus (Apr 4, 2011)

JSL said:


> Ian, I say this sincerely, if you have an interest in nutrition, order a introductory level college nutrition text and spend some time going over it. Animal nutrition seems more cut and dry than say human nutrition. *I suspect it is because the true metric in animal nutrition is animal productivity and not consumer purchasing power.*


And that, my dear fellow beekeepers, is some very, very, very well, distilled and refined piece of wisdom. 

Almost to the point, that when faced with it, one would be put in a position to either pick the RED pill or the BLUE pill. We all face moments like this...all the time!

In the words of ever wise Morpheus:

"*This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more*."

Thanks Doc!...my day just got much brighter, by orders of magnitude!


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Ian said:


> Nobody is asking for absolute answers here, just general discussion. Afterall this is what makes forums like this work. That riffleman can get out a pretty good shot if there is someone standing beside.
> 
> Peace man , love the conversation!


Like wise...Well said, Ian


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Guys, I'm not too far off...
Here are a _few_ of the anonymous email conversations spun off this topic;

_"Hi Ian,

We used DeGroots work from way back in the 50s as our base information for AA ratio. I don't have the exact read out for the recipe, but it does meet the requirements... if anything is is probably high for some of the AA. This recipe was first developed because the egg and brewers' in combination would meet the AA requirements.

We haven't done anything else to tweak it. I think more work could be done in terms of moisture retention, palletability etc. but overall it was a good product especially compared to what is on the market already."_ 

_"Hi Ian,

Finally I hear from the famous Ian Steppler! I was hoping to buy some sunflower honey from you, but did not get a reply. I spoke to your brother briefly this summer. Please let me know if you have or know of someone with 12 barrels of Sunflower honey.!
We have just been following the ... recipe. However, we have changed the recipe from entirely granulated sugar, and we now use some fructose to keep the moisture in. We buy a vitamin mineral mix from Dr. Latshaw, that is balanced for beehives, it was not part of the ... recipe either.

I hope this is helpful for you, I hear your trying the recipe too, how is it going? Were you able to find all the necessary ingredients?

By the way we admire the way you are beekeeping with measurements and a scientific approach. Keep up the inspiration! _"


I don't get any impression from these guys that the deGroot's work is outdated to which they are basing their formulas on updated research. I might be wrong, with my limited understanding of nutrition, but it looks to me these guys are targeting protein, vit, min and palletability. Sounds like a plan to me!!


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Ian, what does the image in your OP tell you? To me, and someone please correct me if I am missing something, it is distorted. Start with the "Bee Requirements" if it is a properly balanced 20% crude protein sample then the following AA's should be expressed as a percentage of the 20%. Percentages are easier to work with and can be calibrated to deGroot's ratios if you like and you could calculate the ideal % Trytophan. It appears as though the person plugged in deGroot's ratios as percentages, but that does not work.

I am not quite sure what this chart tells you. If sweet clover is 20% crude protein then by my rough calculations, using Histidine as the base, Iso-leucine becomes the limiting AA. If this works out correctly, Iso-leucine comes up 12% shy of deGroots ratio for the sweet clover and Lysine is over by about 38%.

It looks like the raw data are correct as far as the amino acids as the percentage of the CP, but the application of deGroot's ratios and interpretation of good vs. poor quality pollen seems off to me. 

What do you think?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

That is exactly the question I am asking. Using this chart, trying to make sense of it, and though I seem to accomplish some understanding of whats being said, I cant figure out why they would represent deGroot's ratio in that manner nor do I understand their crude protein valuation assuming its a book number,.? 

Joe, with the raw data provided, looking at sweet clover, using Randy's converted ratio using Histidine as the reference (as I had presented earlier),the math that works out for me is Threonine is the limiting AA just shy 8% and Lysine is over by 28% otherwise the rest are on target. I dont know how to work their crude protein valuation and I _assume_ we do not have enough information to figure that, 

what do you think? am I figuring that out right?


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Ian said:


> but it looks to me these guys are targeting protein, vit, min and palletability. Sounds like a plan to me!!


The last item to me is the big question mark. Palatability. It's hard sometimes to not draw on ones own experiences in this respect, but, there may be some relavence. Earlier in the thread (or one of the others, I've kinda lost track as they run down the same lines) it was mentioned about how the body builders are well up on all the intricacies of various supplements are supposed to interact with our body. Have you ever tried some of the stuff they ingest ? It's tastes BLOODY AWFUL. Now, if your entire focus in life is manufacturing that 'perfect look', then you are probably willing to ignore the flavour, and eat / drink some of that stuff. Most of us have different priorities in life, and, eating unpalatable food just doesn't fall into the catagory of 'things we do willingly'.

If we are doing a strict study of 'what is contained in the food', then I'll give another example. I know exactly what I need to cook, to have some dinner guests 'dive in and devour' a meal. If I put a 12oz rib steak on the bar-b-que, with baked potatoes and all the trimmings, and a decent veg and a salad on the side, tall glass of beer to go with it, there wont be a scrap left when they are done. BUT, if I take all those same ingredients, put them all into the blender (including the glass of beer), then serve the resulting mush in a bowl, it's doubtful anybody will eat much if any of the presentation. But if you do a strict nutritional analysis, it's the EXACT same stuff, just presented differently. 

Using Ian's cattle example, palatability doesn't enter into the equation. The animals are confined, and have two choices. Eat what is presented, or starve. Take that same animal, put it on a hundred acres of fresh pasture, and dump a load of that same silage mix all doctored up in the middle of the field. Will they even touch it ?

So this gets me asking a dumb question regarding the bees. What is it that makes something more palatable to the bees ? Is it taste ? Is it smell ? Or is it simply that the bees are hard wired to the mode of 'fly out, find it, bring it home', and the physical act of flying out to find it, makes it more 'palatable' ? I've read, and re-read the study of subs on Randy's site, and the one thing that keeps coming back to me, all of the colonies turned the corner when the natural sources became available, which sort of tainted the study objectives, and gave a result that I think everybody already knew. Given the choice, the bees preferred the natural sources, and did better on them. I wonder how the result would have changed had those bees been confined, so the natural sources never became available ?

Personally, I dont think bees are taking various food stuffs back to the lab and analyzing to figure out if it's good or not. They have other mechanisms in play, and basically take what they can find. Humans do that to, when foodstuffs are in limited supply, they eat what's available, but, if the diet is deficient, we often get a 'craving' for a certain food. That's our body telling us, 'I am deficient in something, and you can find that something in this kind of food'. When there is only one pollen source available, the bees will work on it, but, when there are multiples available, is it something as simple as 'oh that tastes better' or 'oh that one smells better', and it's the same mechanism as humans have, different foods 'taste better' at different times, and that's our body telling us, I need something, and it's in that kind of food ?

I think the conversations here regarding basics of what is required, have produced a lot of interesting food for thought, and I've learned a bunch from it. But even if we put the absolute optimum mush inside the hive, does it turn into a case of 'You can lead the horse to water....'


----------



## apis maximus (Apr 4, 2011)

grozzie2 said:


> Using Ian's cattle example, palatability doesn't enter into the equation. The animals are confined, and have two choices. Eat what is presented, or starve. Take that same animal, put it on a hundred acres of fresh pasture, and dump a load of that same silage mix all doctored up in the middle of the field. Will they even touch it ?


*@grozzie2*,

Although a great point to anchor a discussion on...we are on very, very thin ice when coming to Ian's cattle. You might wanna save this well written post before the ever so vigil moderators will delete the whole thing. It will be a waste. Don't ask me how I know



grozzie2 said:


> Given the choice, the bees preferred the natural sources, and did better on them. I wonder how the result would have changed had those bees been confined, so the natural sources never became available ?
> 
> Personally, I dont think bees are taking various food stuffs back to the lab and analyzing to figure out if it's good or not. They have other mechanisms in play, and basically take what they can find. Humans do that to, *when foodstuffs are in limited supply, they eat what's available, but, if the diet is deficient, we often get a 'craving' for a certain food.* That's our body telling us, 'I am deficient in something, and you can find that something in this kind of food'.


Absolutely so, in the case of the bees. Humans...not so much. Long time ago, maybe...now?. Not. Or in very limited cases.
Eat what is available...yes indeed. Ever watched Keith's youtube videos showing his hives loaded with brood at the beginning of January/February ? 
Those hives, as Keith modestly calls them "duds", are in the middle of a bee food desert. By the thousand. In November he places 6-8 lbs of sub on them...then in January again 5-6 lbs. Oh yes, they also had plenty of carbohydrates in the fall...fed to weight. You think the bees just carried the stuff out and disposed of? No way baby...all that went into brood production.

Those hives have never stopped brooding from say Sept/Oct to Jan/Feb of the following year going into almonds. 
Taste and palatability? I am sure. 

But more than anything...eat what is available. Keith knows what he is doing and he tweaked that approach for a long time. He turned the concept of "eat what is available" to his advantage and with no minimal effort I would say. I mean, he could have said, eat what is available, then offer the bees some reycled cardboard, and let it roll. It's not like that. See what I am saying?



grozzie2 said:


> When there is only one pollen source available, the bees will work on it, but, when there are multiples available, is it something as simple as *'oh that tastes better'* or *'oh that one smells better'*, and it's the same mechanism as humans have, different foods 'taste better' at different times, and that's our body telling us, I need something, and it's in that kind of food ?


I'd say, in bees, both. Taste and smell...and why not 'oh, that also looks better'...and who knows what other mechanisms. Humans, not so much. But lets stick to the bees for now. Pollen is a marvelous thing. Not all of it created equal by no stretch of imagination. But, somehow, given access to different kinds, different sources, at different times of the year, the bees have found ways to not only use directly, but also store it and preserve it...we don't wanna go to the microbiota aspect of the thing...although I think is critical.

Just my $.002...there is no currency that small. I know.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

grozzie2 said:


> So this gets me asking a dumb question regarding the bees. What is it that makes something more palatable to the bees ? Is it taste ? Is it smell ? Or is it simply that the bees are hard wired to the mode of 'fly out, find it, bring it home', and the physical act of flying out to find it, makes it more 'palatable' ?


Good post G!

My intention is not to get bogged down trying to understand the whole thing at once, first things first, reading that chart!


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Ian said:


> That is exactly the question I am asking. Using this chart, trying to make sense of it, and though I seem to accomplish some understanding of whats being said, I cant figure out why they would represent deGroot's ratio in that manner nor do I understand their crude protein valuation assuming its a book number,.?
> 
> Joe, with the raw data provided, looking at sweet clover, using Randy's converted ratio using Histidine as the reference (as I had presented earlier),the math that works out for me is Threonine is the limiting AA just shy 8% and Lysine is over by 28% otherwise the rest are on target. I dont know how to work their crude protein valuation and I _assume_ we do not have enough information to figure that,
> 
> what do you think? am I figuring that out right?


The crude protein # represents the percentage value of all available protein in the pollen. They are reporting 9 of the essential AA. And report them as a percent of the crude protein. If you had all of the AA represented as a percent, you could all them all up and get 100% 

I do not know how you are calculating things I do get Threonine limiting at about 8% as you do, but Iso-leucine is still limiting at about 12%.

I think you mentioned Canola as being ideal, is that correct? I calculate Iso-leucine as being about 18% shy in Canola. Is that what you see?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I'm working off Randy's ratio he reworked off of deGroot's using Histidine as the reference; 

A.a.	Suggested proportion
Histidine	1
tryptophan 0.5
Arginine	2
Isoleucine	2
Leucine	3
Lysine	2.5
Methionine + cysteine	1
Phenylalanine + tyrosine	2
Threonine	2
Valine	2.5

Im looking at sweet clover, Threonine, ratio of 1.84:1 , 2:1 required making it 8% shy. 

Am I understanding and doing this right?


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Ian, based on Randy's numbers it looks like your calculations are correct. So here is where it is interesting to me. deGroot has an approximation expressed as ratios, Randy has a tweaked version of deGroot's approximation expressed as ratios and I have an approximation expressed as a AA % of Crude Protein content. All three are relatively similar, with some notable differences. Protein analyses are generally expressed as you see in the chart your presented as a AA % of Crude Protein content. In my opinion, this is a more user friendly format. Perhaps you could ask Randy to convert his ratios to percentages? Secondly, with approximations expressed as a percentage, each AA can be expressed individually so there is no need for Methionine + cysteine.

I was also thinking about the "quality" of Dandelion pollen. I do not see it as a bad source based on my AA approximations. Based on my calculations, the bees can use 70% of the protein compared with say 76% of the protein in Sweet Clover. Granted there is more available protein in Sweet Clover, but look at the abundance of Dandelions in the spring. There are also carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, and fat content to consider, so I am not sure about writing off Dandelions.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

oh no I am not writing off Dandelion, I absolutely agree with you. Think of the strings of pollen that also come into the hive at that time to help boost those deficient proteins! The vit min and fats along with dandelion is a point both you and Allen were making earlier. I dont know those values and possibly that conversation can be left for another topic. 

But first I need to understand this chart and what you are saying. 

To your first point of discussion...

the values in the chart are correct as I have checked them with other "google searched" analysis, so lets take them at face value. I dont know about the crude protein as I dont have enough information to determine those numbers.

I do not understand your question. Does the ratio used, in my case Randys tweaked ratio using Histidine as the reference, not take the AA which is expressed as a % of Crude Protein and convert it into a ratio of simply that? 

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/pollen-supplement-formula/

"deGroot did not specify percentages of amino acids–he specified a “normalized” ratio of amino acid weights relative to the amount of tryptophan. deGroot never implied that a formula should be 1.00% trypotophan–rather, divide all other amino acid weights (or percentages) by the weight/percentage of tryptophan, to obtain their relative value. For example, brewers yeast runs about 0.62% tryptophan and 1.7% threonine. So you’d divide 1.7 by 0.62 to obtain a ratio of 2.74:1 threonine:tryptophan, which is close to deGroot’s suggested ratio of 3:1."

Am I mis understanding this? Each AA is represented as a % of the Crude Protein, to which is converted to a ratio developed by deGroots to make that value relevant to the diet of a honeybee. Right? 
I think that is what you are saying also, right? So what are you asking?


----------



## JSL (Sep 22, 2007)

Why the need to convert anything? AA's are analyzed and expressed on a percentage basis. In my opinion, it is easier and cleaner to keep them as a percentage and report the entire protein content. I am not sure there is a need to assume a normalized ratio based on a single AA such a trypotphan or histidine.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

The only way I can understand what the AA% represent to the bees diet is by converting them into deGroots ratio. Otherwise, how can you determine if the profile is balanced?


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

To the best of my memory, in this area, Dandelions are by themselves. They are after Red(swamp) Maple and Willow, and before the fruit trees/bushes. The pollen we see entering during dandelions is pretty much all the same color, unlike later in the year.

Has anyone tested pollen from the same plant, but different locations? If it differs, you would be shooting blindfolded, at a moving target, and that would be crazy.

Crazy Roland


----------



## davidsbees (Feb 22, 2010)

Ian,
I feel that until there is something better that comes along I will stick with DeGroot. If you have a broad protein base, lipids,vitamins, minerals and a little eye of newt you will have a well rounded mix. The bees take the feed very well and have raised drones all winter, I'm satisfied.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Ian said:


> Im looking at sweet clover, Threonine, ratio of 1.84:1 , 2:1 required making it 8% shy.
> 
> Am I understanding and doing this right?


You can get this same info of the percentages. No need to used one of the aa as a reference.

What does it mean? If we accept the values at face value, theoretically when a bee is synthesizing protein it will run out of theonine before histidine if it is using sweet clover pollen. The same comparison needs to be done for the other aa and the most "deficient" aa will run out first. The ratios/percents for a pollen predict can limiting aa which may or may not be a problem. 

Another way of looking at this is analyzing the amount of each aa available for the different pollens. The higher the crude protein the more aa available. Some pollens will also have profiles more weighted to the essential aa as well.

If an assumption is made that a bee can ingest 100 g of pollen the crude protein percentage would also be the grams of protein ingested. The grams of each aa available could also be calculated. Also assuming that the bees would equal amounts of pollen too fill their stomachs regardless of quality. I calculated the grams of each aa available for some of the pollens for a 100 g sample.

The pollens at the top of the chart have far more grams of amino acids available to synthesize proteins whether or not the aa profile approximates deGroot's ratios or not. All values on the chart are in g / 100 g of pollen.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

JSL said:


> I was also thinking about the "quality" of Dandelion pollen. I do not see it as a bad source based on my AA approximations. Based on my calculations, the bees can use 70% of the protein compared with say 76% of the protein in Sweet Clover. Granted there is more available protein in Sweet Clover, but look at the abundance of Dandelions in the spring. There are also carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals, and fat content to consider, so I am not sure about writing off Dandelions.


Seems to be a lot of conflicting info about dandelions in the popular and scientific literature. Quotes from the Australian government publication The Effect of High and Low Fat Pollens on Honeybee Longevity

"Standifer’s observation that ‘excellent brood rearing’ occurred from a diet of
dandelion pollen is in stark contrast to research by Herbert et al. (1970) who found bees fed dandelion
pollen diets were unable to rear brood."

"Herbert et al. (1970) discovered why the dandelion pollen
in their experiments was unable to rear brood. When fortified with L-arginine, the diet did result in
complete brood rearing."

My bees appear to like dandelion pollen and seem to do well on it.


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

Some questions that I keep wondering about as related to aa profiles for pollens.

It is my understanding that bees utilize l aa and not d aa. So a profile may have a high level of certain aa but it may be mostly d aa so in reality this is really a deficient aa. Am I understanding this correctly?

If "unbalance" pollen is used, do the non-utilized aa become toxic or are they just excreted?

If crude protein levels are high, do the levels of other nutrient in the pollen decrease to levels that cause deficiency problems for the bees?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Someone elses posted this video recently. As long it is winter take your time and watch this. It might be well worth watching it very carefully. I reckon the video is related to this topic. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSRYbe60AF4

Or read the script: http://www.cabk.org.uk/download/tra...cript-Energy-Honey-Bees-and-Humans-301014.pdf

Starting at minute 01:09:56;04 
_Now just to remind you that journalists have a very poor understanding of nutrition, they think that if one gram of something does you good, ten grams will do you ten times as good. And they have this graph. But it's not true, of course. This is the graph that applies in both honeybee nutrition and in human nutrition. It's not good for honeybees to get all their food from one source. It's very important for them to have a diversity of food sources.

Honeybees can produce a lot of honey from oilseed rape. But they still need other pollen grains with other contents to come in to maximize their immunological system, for example, make sure that it's got all the nutrients that it needs. So although honeybees will produce a lot of honey on single types of crop like oilseed rape, it's very important to make sure they have access to other forage, as well.

So here you see what happens is - and if we take that human case, a little bit of something-- a vitamin or a mineral gives you maximum health benefit. Every time you then take the same quantity, you get less benefit. Then eventually, it gives you no benefit, and then it starts to kill you. This graph is exactly the same, even for oxygen, and even for water. 

So if you want to be healthy, you eat a little bit of everything and not too much of any one thing._


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Also we have the knowledge, that bees like any other living thing doesn't live on an island. It is embedded into a web of life and strongly depends on that web. Deknow collected a lot of it, about bacterias and fungi associated with bees. Now you don't feed the bees, you feed a bee-system, so you need to feed those bacterias, too, or they shrivel and eventually die or are weakened. And if they are weakened, the bees are weakened. And so on. 

You basicly need to plant that web of life, which can't be supplemented with some proteins here and there. You all probably know that already, just saying. :shhhh:


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Allen Martens said:


> You can get this same info of the percentages. No need to used one of the aa as a reference.



Excellent post Allen

I am still having trouble understanding how to read the AA profile chart using percentages to get the same information as if I were to convert everything using Histidine as a reference. If you could please ignore my ignorance and spell out an example for me.? I would appreciate that. My mind is still stuck on converting the AA% into the usable ratio.


----------

