From: "Allen Dick" <allend@internode.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:22:55 -0700
To: <BiologicalBeekeeping@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Food chambers

> > > A.I. Root, the first author of this book, as was seen in the original
editions, strongly advised against extracting too closely and then feeding
sugar syrup to replace the honey taken out. He argued that it was poor
economy even though sugar syrup was cheaper than honey. He further contended
that it was not as good for the bees... < < <

Such general advice should always be questioned by readers and considered in
light of the current situation and specific regional factors. The advice
has a grain of truth in it, but 'Sugar syrup' is not necessarily the same as
'sugar syrup' and 'honey' is not necessarily the same as 'honey'. Relative
prices fluctuate and economics change.

1.) There are many honies and honeydews that cause predictable high or total
bee loss if they are the principal feed used for wintering. Determining
whether they are present and in what amounts is not always possible. If
that is a risk, routine replacement with a substitute cannot lead to worse
results, and with judgement, can lead to equal or better success.

2.) Standardization on purity levels and color content of sugar and sugar
syrups is a fairly recent phenomenon -- AFAIK. Although refined white table
sugar is currently quite uniform throughout Canada and the USA, some is from
cane and some from beets. There has been much debate about the differences,
if any, but beekeepers seem to have decided that the two are pretty much
comparable for bee feed, and that it is superior to many, if not most,
honies for wintering in cold climates.

FWIW, the boatloads of 'World Sugar' we see at such attractive prices on the
futures market is only partially refined sugar, by our domestic standards.
In Mexico, table sugar is usually tan in color and less refined -- or was a
decade back. I recall this distinctly because on an odyssey down the Baja,
we were told of beaches with sugar white sand. We searched and searched in
vain (we were on a windsurfing trip). As it turned out, we found them right
off, but did not recognise them -- they were beige in color.

Although replacing or supplementing honey with sugar or HFCS is usually a
safe practice, it is not immune to its own problems. A few years back in
Western Canada, there was an incident of mass bee losses due to problems
with a batch or batches of HFCS, a normally reliable feed. There are also
the costs and management problems associated with removing honey and
supplying feed in its place.

Simply leaving lots of honey for the bees is an ideal practice, if the honey
is of an appropriate type, but economics and reality sometimes cause us to
do things differently. When the price differential is favourable to
removing as much honey as possible, and satisfactory results can be had with
sugar, many beekeepers have no choice and sell as much honey as they can to
satisfy the bank, and to get ahead a bit. The bees probably also benefit --
from having a more prosperous owner, at least that is what I like to think.

Reading old bee books is interesting, but it is dangerous to assume that
words (such as 'sugar') mean the same to the authors as to us. In my short
life, I have seen major changes in meanings of many words in common usage.
I have also seen amazing changes in the standards of products and behaviour.
Education standards were very different one hundred years ago and concepts
much less standardized. Additionally, writing style in those days tended to
pontification and hyperbole, romanticism and anthropomorphism.
Generalization of limited personal observations into universal 'truths' was
common. Hmm. Maybe things haven't changed much.

allen