"There is nothing new under the sun". The writer of Ecclesiastes observed this some time back and it seems that his observation applies to this list and the current topics of discussion. What is interesting is IMO, with the exception of my contributions (hehehe) and those of several other serious students of bees on the list, the current quality of debate does not seem to nearly match the earlier contributions on bee nutrition. I attribute this to the fact that as subjects get re-hashed and re-hashed, those with respect for the subject grow weary of repeating themselves and dwindle away. To draw a parallel to our discussion of bee nutrition, provocative emotive posts (trolls), long-winded repititious unsubstantiated professions of 'belief' and syrupy words are a poor substitute for sharing of genuine knowledge on a topic. They are an artificial diet for those of us who look for real experience and real proof before believing, and who, even then, believe only lightly. I observed earlier that Andy had not put in his two cents. On reviewing the logs on the topic, I can see he has very, very little left to say. He said it all, and said it well, here as recently as Thu, 1 Feb 1996 at 05:12:00 GMT. I won't repeat it again here, but you can access it at my page with one click. Simply go to http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ and select "SAD and BAD Bees" Those of you who would actually like to know what has been said before in advance of jumping into what has become a discussion of feeling much more than fact, please seriously consider going to http://www.beekeeping.co.nz/beel.htm and doing a few simple searches before posting. It will definitely change what you post and definitely make you look a whole lot smarter than you might if you merely assume everyone else is stupid and shoot from the hip. A trip to http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis.htm may take a few hours, but will put a reader on top of many current topics. Tom has an amazing skill at chronicling the changes in beekeeping that are taking place. As for the current discussion, the issue has become clouded in rhetoric and whimsy and imprecise use of words. Just to make it absolutely clear, I think that no beekeeper in his right mind thinks that a good quality, long nectar and honeyflow can ever be entirely replaced by artificial feeding. Having said that, those who actually care about their bees (and themselves) have discovered and proven over and over again that -- in the absence of ideal conditions -- supplementation pays dividends to both the bees and the beekeeper. Natural (whatever that is) nectar and pollen flows are definitely preferable to both parties, and for the beekeeper, generally much cheaper. Sometimes profitable, even! In the spirit of helping encourage people to feed their bees sugar syrup when advantageous to both parties, and in response to an earlier question, I am also putting up a new page of photos of our electric hive feeder at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/ Watch my 'What's New' page. Allen