I would suspect sucrose is sucrose. Now if you wished to compare sucrose with hfcs that would be another conversation.

 

Okay then, lets start that conversation... Those commercials on TV have peaked my interest in feeding HFCS instead of sugar syrup. They claim it is "nutrionally the same" as sugar, but does it work as well for the bees? Sure seems attactive to be able to pour HFCS directly into the feeder instead of mixing sugar water.

 

I can only offer this. In all of my yards, set the two side by side any day and the bees will take the cane sugar over HFCS every time.

I tend not to try to second guess the bees myself. But to each his own......

 

Not to the bees. Now unrefined or brown sugar is another matter. And don't try the artificial sweeteners. They don't do any good.

 

Sugar is sugar....... I feed beet sugar because I can
get it fairly cheap. If cane sugar were cheaper, I'd
feed that. If HFCS were cheaper, I'd likely go that
route.

Dry sugar certainly has some downsides regarding mixing.
But that is also an upside in that in a dry state it stores
almost indefinitely. HFCS has to be mixed as well to prevent
crytalization.

 

I've fed beet sugar for years and see no difference. There have been some recent allegations that the sugar beets are now being treated with neonicitinoids. I don't have any idea if that's true or not, but it would worry me some if it is.

 

Hi Guys,

I haven't noticed any difference, concerning feeding the bees beet versus cane sugar. I can detect a different smell between the two when mixing a large batch of syrup up.

Now, I have found a significant different when using sugar versus HFCS when rearing queens. The bees definitely do better with the sugar. I tried various dilutions of both, working on the economics, acceptance, shelf life, etc. And HFCS comes in second no matter how you dice it.

I will not use HFCS for queen rearing.

Have feed tankers full of both HFCS and sugar syrup for field colonies. Was running too fast and working too hard, trying to keep bees alive, to make any comparisons.

 

Michael's comment about neonicitinoids if interesting
I simply don't know the answer to the question
could pesticides, topical or systemic, be transferred into something like sugar?
if so I would think it would raise questions about our food supply

Dave

 

I wish I could find the source, but my memory tells me the beet sugar has a higher "ash content."

Does more ash really matter? Does it hurt? I dunno. I can only find "Pure Cane Sugar" at my sugar source.

Grant
Jackson, MO

 

I wish I could find the source, but my memory tells me the beet sugar has a higher "ash content."

Grant
Jackson, MO

Ash not what your country can do for you,....

What is ash content? Is there any ash content in cane sugar? Is ash used as an extender?

 

I think without a doubt if you make a comparison by how well bees THRIVE that suger is preferred over hfcs. it has been a long time since I have fed hfcs and at the time we were absolutely unaware that it could be formulated improperly and be quite harmful to the bees. the going strategy (at that time) was to feed (we were employing pot feeding at that time in 55 gallon drums) a couple of rounds of hfcs and then a round of sucrose. I never saw it happen myself, but my mentor said after a couple of rounds the bees would tend to begin to ignore the hfcs (and as hungry as those girls were that said something).

 

Soluble ash us used to adjust the Ph in the
syrup. Both cane and beet have identical ash
content.

Cane Sugar Specs

Icumsa : 45 RBU
Polarization : 99.80% Min
Ash content : 0.04% Max
Moisture : 0.04% Max
Solubility : 100% Free Flowing
Radiation : Normal Certified
Colour : Sparkling White
Granulation : Fine

Beet Sugar Specs

Icumsa: 45 - 100 RBU
Polarization: 99.80% Min
Ash content : 0.04% Max
Moisture: 0.04% Max
Solubility: 100% Dry & Free Flowing
Radiation: Normal without presence of cesium or iodine
Color: Sparkling White Crysta

 

the only difference I know of is that almost all the beets in this country are from GMO seed now. Monsanto got monopoly on that market. So if you care about GMO's... If you don't, I think there's no difference.

 

I have one book that mentions a study of caged bees that were feed different types of sugar. I forget which book it was but I do remember the general results.

Bees live the longest on sucrose.
HFCS and Honey were the same.

HFCS is quick and easy and cheaper for me, so I use HFCS.

 

HFCS and Honey were the same.

Research must have been done by HFCS manufacturers.

 

I am trying to find the study and will post it when I do.

 

A lot of sugar beet seed is indeed treated with neonicotinoids now. Neonicotinoids are systemics that work on the central nervous systems of insects; here's a definition of "systemic" from Wikipedia:

An insecticide or fungicide whose mode of action is via uptake into a plant, entering the pest when the plant is consumed.

So when an insect eats part of a plant grown from treated seed, it gets a dose of whatever neonicotinoid was used. It would certainly seem to me that it will still be in the sugar beets themselves when they're turned into sugar.

Or does the processing of beets into sugar destroy it? I've no idea; I just have a bad feeling it probably doesn't.

 

michael bush writes:
There have been some recent allegations that the sugar beets are now being treated with neonicitinoids.

tecumseh:
mizz tecumseh informed me recently that one of the more recent phd dissertation she set in on, a similar thingee was being done on sugar cane. curious little experiement that it was... they were trying to determine if neonicitinoids added to sugar cane effected the ability of a parasitic wasp to locate a pest that preyed on sugar cane. evidently (based on the conclusion of the student's research) the sound emitted by the pest was lowered enough that the parasitic wasp had greater difficulty in locating the pest. this suggested that there was a negative impact in adding this kind of product in terms of an existing pest/predator relationship and would in fact (over some short time interval) actually be counter productive.

 

There was a small variation between honey and HFCS but it was statistically insignificant. The interesting thing is they lived longer on sucrose.

A number of researchers have done this comparison or variants on it, I believe.

Syrup made from white sugar and good water resembles nectar chemically, although I am sure there must be some small differences. My understanding, though is that refined sugar is quite pure. The water used to make syrup can be something to watch.

Jerry Bromenshenk indicated some time back that fluorides are a cumulative toxin for bees and if their principal source of water is high fluoride, which occurs some places naturally (like here in my home town), the bees may not do well. Normally, this is not a problem, but the effect was noticed where the bees were gathering from a spring with high fluoride.
​

HFCS is made by a variety of processes and may have varying levels of titratable acid, and apparently, even if a specific HFCS is fine for humans, it can damage bees digestion, especially in wintering conditions where it may be the sole feed.

Honey is a product that can vary greatly in composition, so generalities are quite meaningless, unless the type is specified. Additionally, HMF builds up quite rapidly in honey kept in warm environments and over a few years, so old honey, even in comb, can have high HMF. Some honies are mildly toxic to confined bees. Others are high in solids that accumulate over time in the bees guts, causing them to fly out.

Beekeepers generally know their local honies that are toxic or bad for wintering and try to be sure to extract them and either let the bees replace them with better honey, feed the bees up with sugar syrup, or keep a food chamber of spring honey to use in fall.

The upshot is that, if the winter is not challenging as in the deep south, and the bees are otherwise well nourished and populous, good HFCS, table sugar syrup or good honey all can do a good job.

Where winters are longer and colder, the quality of feed becomes more important. Sugar syrup, properly prepared and fed early enough that it is mostly capped over is probably the safest bet, but a known-good recent-crop honey may be as good or better, especially if known-good (not toxic or contaminated) pollen has been stored under the honey.

HFCS can approach the others and is definitely better than poor quality honey, but why take a chance? Even good HFCS has shown slightly shorter bee lifespan in caged bee studies compared to sugar syrup, and in winter lifespan is the name of the game.

Seeing a small difference in real world bee hives is difficult without comparisons and accurate metrics. As stated, all the feeds above do get bees through the winter more times than not. Is one better than the other in a specific instance? It is so hard to tell. That is why smart beekeepers read, think, ask around locally, and use the best that is available to them.

When I was a commercial operator, I always fed 67% sugar syrup in September, then again in mid-October to make sure all the hives (doubles) were up to desired weight (55kg minimum, incl lids, buit not floors) and had very low loss (I had also fed Global Patties in spring, and that was a factor in our success).

In recent years, since I cut back to hobbying, I have wintered on just honey, since I do not extract and the hives are always very heavy. My success is about the same.

As for whether cane is better than beet, we are assured by the scientists that there is little difference. I don't know, though. Some beekeepers claim there is a difference. As for pesticide contamination, I doubt that there is a measurable amount or we'd be hearing about it, as we did about mercury in HFCS. (That, as far as I know was overdone. There is mercury in everything if we look close enough, but time will tell).

 

just another 'must read' allend snip..

Syrup made from white sugar and good water resembles nectar chemically, although I am sure there must be some small differences. My understanding, though is that refined sugar is quite pure. The water used to make syrup can be something to watch.

Jerry Bromenshenk indicated some time back that fluorides are a cumulative toxin for bees and if their principal source of water is high fluoride, which occurs some places naturally (like here in my home town), the bees may not do well. Normally, this is not a problem, but the effect was noticed where the bees were gathering from a spring with high fluoride.

tecumseh:
since I mix up my own sucrose for feeding I have wondered about the various compounds that might be in the local drining water and if any of these might be a concern in regards to the syrup for the bees. I seem to recall that there are certain salts that may be attractive to the bees??? Do you (allend) know of any source that might reference compounds to be absolutely avoided in regards to making up syrup (ie salts or compounds in the water that might produce negative side effects).