Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There is a very nice write up on bee nutrition by Dr. Zachary Huang in this months(aug) ABJ. I encourge everbody to take the time read the article. Zac, talks about bee health, what & should be use in subs,also what % fats, protein & lipids. Alot of good stuff in the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
it was a great article The bee community has come a way in the last year or two regarding nutrition but still such a long ways too go.
One thing that seems to be lacking in knowledge is the Vit and Minerals needs of the bees.
I know i can say and probably many others that you have been a lot of help keith in the nutrition realm of bees.
Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
One thing that seems to be lacking in knowledge
Thanks Nick, did you see where Zac mentions Stachyose is very toxic to bees over 4%, just keep useing that cheap tosted soy, there are a couple other reasons for not useing cheap soy products in your sub but thats for another thread.

PS. watch what you use for ingeredients
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
[QUOTE=Keith Jarrett keep useing that cheap tosted soy, there are a couple other reasons for not useing cheap soy products in your sub.

10 4 on that, been there done that.
I know people say that the toasted soy is fine but i think there are others who tested it and say other wise (steve taber was one). So why risk it when it doesnt work. oh yea its cheap :D
Nick
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
578 Posts
Facts are facts, however how people understand facts and what they 'reason' from facts are often far from reality.

In all nutritional matters, the amount consumed and what is being consumed in the same time frame is as significant as whether any specific ingredient is nutritious or toxic.

All foods contain ingredients which are harmful if consumed in excess, but harmless or beneficial in moderate and appropriate amounts and proportions.

There is no ideal ration for all seasons and conditions, and free-flying bees will have different needs from caged bees.

Primary considerations in all animal feeding regimes is to chose cost-effective, time proven, fresh ingredients from trusted suppliers.

Wise beekeepers disregard hype and innuendo and use what has proven effective for themselves and others they trust and respect.

Amazing nutitional properties or inplied toxicity and other deficiencies in competing products are much more easily observed in marketing propaganda than in the actual beehive.

Although the basic nutritional needs of bees have been known for decades, few real advances have been made in actual bee feeding over that time. What worked in the past continues to work.

Marginal improvements may or may not have been made in recent years, but it is hard to tell since unbiased studies are very hard to do. Any test will give an advantage to one or another formulation. There is no way around that, and the products on the market do not vary sufficiently in efficacy for there to be an obvious winner.

IMO, pretty well all the recognized products on the market are decent bee feeds, and the decision comes down to price and availability. Freshness and a nearby supplier or cheap delivery options are major criteria for making a decision. Personally, I would only feed or use products with known and publically stated ingredients GRAS or food certified ingredients or an approval from a government agency and avoid products which incorporate unstated ingredients.

This consideration is very important for those producing honey, since whatever goes into the hive may appear in the honey. Each year, the buyers are becoming more critical and examining honey more carefully and with more subtle analysis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Facts are facts, Wise beekeepers disregard hype and innuendo and use what has proven effective for themselves and others they trust and respect.

Amazing nutitional properties or inplied toxicity and other deficiencies in competing products are much more easily observed in marketing propaganda than in the actual beehive.
.
If you would like Dick, I can put up the USDA (Jeff Pettis) charts up again on brood prodution?

I don't think Jeff or Zachary are pushing propaganda, just the facts.

All subs are not the same, there is no Propaganda as you say. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
578 Posts
> I don't think Jeff or Zachary are pushing propaganda, just the facts.

Please don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying.

I am not making any suggestions about what Jeff or Zach write or say. I know both of them and either chat or correspond with both occasionally and I respect their opinions and take their statements in context.

> If you would like Dick,

Actually, my name is Allen.

> I can put up the USDA (Jeff Pettis) charts up again on brood prodution?

If you mean the same rough-looking charts that were offered some time back, there is no point. Without supporting discussion and explanation, they are just pictures.

If we are, indeed, talking about the same rough charts, since the material offered at the time was very rough and unofficial-looking and unsupported by details, I assumed it was not released and I wrote Jeff for background information on the charts and received no reply. Since I know Jeff and Jeff knows me, I took this to mean that he did not want to get involved in trying to explain the context and meaning or get dragged into a forum and is perhaps working on publication. I respect this and understand why the scientists are reluctant to be involved in forums unless a matter is cut and dried and uncontroversial. Maybe my email went astray or he was just too busy, but I did not follow it up or bother to ask again last time I saw him. Maybe next time...

I may have missed something valid that you posted since our last go-round and may have missed something since. Please correct me is that is the case.

> All subs are not the same,

Again, that is not what I am saying at all. There are differences. Whether the differences are as significant or material as some promoters would like to believe or not, or whether the differences justify extra cost or the risk of feeding un-named secret ingredients is to my mind debatable.

> there is no Propaganda as you say. :)

Really?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
true by why use it if there is a chance? use better ingredients,
I have read some studys about soy in patties (wish i could remember where i saw them) that if the bees are fed a diet containing a lot of soy the queen will lay eggs but they will not hatch, kinda works the same as a birth control pill.
if any one knows of this study i would love to see it again.

HUMMMMMMMM.
4% diluted with the rest of the pollen supplement ingredients should be minimal.
Ernie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
Well Allen, sorry about getting you mixed up with Dick Allen from Alaska.

You can buy tosted soy at 45% protein OR, you can buy ISP soy at 93% protein with no stachyose the choice is yours.

That's why all subs are not the same, take a look at Randy Olivers web site with the lab charts of sub, Clearly a difference in subs.


 

·
Banned
Joined
·
578 Posts
> You can buy tosted soy at 45% protein OR, you can buy ISP soy at 93% protein with no stachyose the choice is yours. That's why all subs are not the same, take a look at Randy Olivers web site with the lab charts of sub, Clearly a difference in subs.

This is not the question for most people who are only interested in resuts, not technicalities which have little or no significant impact in practical situations.

Theoretical differences are of little interest to those who are looking for real results and not interested in paying extra for things which do not have a measurable imact and return a proven profit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
The spotlight being shown on bee nutrition is a welcome one, it is about time.
If quality of food didn't matter we would all be eating saw dust. Of course, the other end of that spectrum might bankrupt us. I think we are all smart enough here to decide what degree of quality we consider to be cost effective, given published studies, recommendations based on experience from trusted sources and personal experience, taking into consideration that cost effectiveness is not a static value.
The impact of using lesser quality ingredients might be marginal in an environment with relatively strong natural resources but more noticeable in an environment more nutritionally challenging to the bees. It seems to me that at times when the bees were very dependent on the sub, it is just common sense that quality ingredients would be more important and as many nutritional needs as practical be accounted for.
Sheri
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
578 Posts
The impact of using lesser quality ingredients might be marginal in an environment with relatively strong natural resources but more noticeable in an environment more nutritionally challenging to the bees. It seems to me that at times when the bees were very dependent on the sub, it is just common sense that quality ingredients would be more important and as many nutritional needs as practical be accounted for.
Sheri
Sensible words, but what do we mean by "quality ingredients"? What are they? How do we get them? How do we know we received them after we take delivery?

We get them by relying on suppliers. Do suppliers deserve that trust? Good question. The highest quality ingredient can be harmful if it is not stored or handled properly, is present in excess, or is not fresh.

I think we can assume that all suppliers of any repute are careful to make sure that the ingredients they use are appropriate and on-spec. We can check that one off.

I think that most suppliers handle the ingredients and end product carefully, so we can check that one off, too.

Now for freshness. That can be the tough one, since even when the ingredients sourced and used in manufacture are fresh, once they are combined, chemical reactions can occur between acids and oils and enzymes and proteins -- and other constituents.

Heat and time after manufacture accelerate the changes. Some changes may be beneficial, but some may result in formation of toxins or in undesirable biological activity.

So, the more constituents used, the greater to complexity of predicting possible deterioration and the greater the number of potential products of decomposition.

That brings us back to freshness, delivey and storage as being critical factors, possibly more critical than the choice of ingredients.

I am aware of one report of a well-known bee supply outlet selling product over a year old and stored at room temp.

No matter what the ingredients, this cannot be good.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
578 Posts
> true by why use it if there is a chance? use better ingredients,

I was going to let this one pass, but maybe it needs an answer.

"Better ingredients" is a term that is harder to define than we may think. As one who owns and reads books on insect nutrition, I can assure you that these matters are not clear or simple. So much depends on what else is being fed, the history of the bees, the season and the environment. Besides manufacturing processes can vary.

Scientists attempt to isolate factors and run many tests to try to tease out principles, but the real proof is empirical. The real test is what works and works *reliably* in practice.

There is an old saying, "It works in practice, but can it work in theory"?

Often it can be difficult to explain why something works. It is easier to explain why something *should* work, and that is what we are getting in spades on the nutrition front these days. Theory.

On the other hand, we have tried and tested formulations which work no m atter what the theory might suggest. Why? Because of complex interactions which may nullify supposed ill effects.

To me a "better ingredient" is one which has stood the test of time and proven itself to be beneficial WITH NO ADVERSE INCIDENTS.

> I have read some studys about soy in patties (wish i could remember where i saw them) that if the bees are fed a diet containing a lot of soy the queen will lay eggs but they will not hatch, kinda works the same as a birth control pill. if any one knows of this study i would love to see it again.

I'd love to see that study, too, since soy is an ingedient in a number of diets which have been very successful for many years in assisting maintain brood rearing with no such reports.

Personally, I had 9 colonies last year and they have been split up to 105 at present. They are doing well, and I attribute part of the success to constant feeding with a supplement which happens to contain soy among other ingredients. If soy is a birth control for bees, it isn't working.

I think the problem is that people confuse the various soy products out there. Indeed there are some which contain enzyme inhibitors in sufficient amounts to be harmful, but there are also soy products which do not.

Soy can be part of a good supplement. It just has to be chosen wisely.

It is not advisable to just go buy any old soy product and feed it to bees, but some people do.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top