> The mantra is oft repeated here that 'all beekeeping is local'.

It is, and it is true, but we are going beyond that discussion, from "local" 
to "specific to each hive and each day"..

The issue here is that each and every hive, every location and every day is 
different, with different needs and different resources, and, moreover, the 
environment and weather are unpredictable.

Simply put, achieving an exact and perfect match to the nutitional needs of 
each and every hive, everywhere -- whatever that might be -- is not likley 
to happen naturally in any consistent or continuous fashion.   We should 
give up that idea.

Can we manage that artificailly?  Good question.

I know, nature is wonderful,, and our bugs have marvelous capabilities that 
are beyond our comprehension to buffer, adapt and make do, BUT, we come back 
to the fact that we are -- for our own selfish reasons -- looking for a way 
to ensure the best continuous nutritional result possible.

It seems obvious to me that the only way to ensure that is not to try to 
merely match minimal needs, but to provide a continuous *surplus*.  We look 
for that in queen cells -- *excess* feed at all times -- so why do we not 
look for and provide excess feed for the hive itself?  Because we are cheap 
and want to believe that we don't need to, that is why.

It seems we're prepared top believe in magic if necesary, and love to quote 
those who wrote and write romantically about bees being perfectly adapted 
superbeings and eschew direct scientific examination of the question.

It also appears that many would rather pay hundreds of dollars for packages 
every year and waste time and effort cleaning up dead-outs than pay a few 
dollars for feed.

Feeding used to be a pain, and subject to many errors in content and 
application, but it is not that hard now that good pre-made paties are 
available cheaply everywhere.  It takes minutes to just slap some on the 
hives every few weeks all year (except winter) and watch.  Once hives get 
striong, it seems that the bees will eat the patties even off the top bars 
of supers and from the floors.  Of course, the centre of the hive is still 
best.

Back to the question of what to feed?  A technical and synthesized expensive 
product designed to replace pollen, or a simple supplement with or without 
pollen.  I suppose there are several answers, depending on circumstance.

Some targets require a sharpshooter with a rifle, and some require a 
shotgun.

The rifle approach is to try to determine the nutitional needs of a 
'typical'  (non-existant) colony and try to match it exactly.  Then find how 
to synthesize that diet, and feed.  This is the idealist's approach.  The 
problems with this approach become quickly obvious after even a little 
thought.

There are far too many variables.  Too many assumptions must be made for any 
one solution to be found and feed synthesis is complex and expensive. 
Highly processes and unstated ingredients may be called in.  'Intuitively", 
as my linear algebra prof used to say, here is virtually no likelihood that 
such an approach would be a closer fit for many situations than a shotgun 
approach -- cheap and plentifull -- produces.

Here is the shotgun approach.  Rather than trying to provide an ideal, 
perfectly matched diet.  We know already which nutrients are most likely to 
be deficient in a hive and which are most important to have on hand at all 
times, so we find a cheap, palatable, non-spoiling way to deliver it, feed 
plenty and often, and are done.  Some beekeepers have been doing just that.

> Get the nutrition right.  Sure there are other problems, but get the 
> nutrition right and half of them disappear, or, are, at least reduced.

That is the message. However, the doubt and confusion arise in deciding what 
is "right"?.  Perfectionists wait around for the ideal while practical 
beekeepers feed. what is at hand.

Many small beekeepers and some idealistic, simplistic writers think, that 
they can somehow rely on nature to supply that nutrition 24/7/365 and 
everywhere.  It is *possible* that some can, but frankly I doubt it.  The 
successful commercials have been increasingly catching on and I doubt that 
there are many in North America who do not use at least some 
supplementation.

> With respect it seems simple to me.  Avoid locations with poor or 
> deficient pollens (toxic), seek out those with good pollens.

I find it strange, having been around awhile, that this idea seems obvious 
to some writers.  Personally, I am having problems imagining circumstances 
for that to be true.  For what you seem to be suggesting to be a complete 
and adequate solution to the problems presented, I have to assume that you 
find yourself in

1.) a large region where predicable, stable weather, reliable rainfall and 
where plantings and blooming flora do not change and

2.) where toxic sprays are never used.  Moreover you must

3.) be free from competition from other beekeepers who can crowd an area, 
and you must

4.) be free of the mites that suck the 'blood' of North American bees and 
increase their nutritional needs.

If so, I can understand why you don't see a problem.

Beekeepers, both large and small, where I have been , at least, often have 
to choose or settle for locations -- temporary or longer term -- that are 
less than desireable nutritionally for considerations other than the pollen 
availability.  I am not going to spell out the details, because 'most any 
commercial beekeeper will understand, and we have been over that before.

The underlying assumption of the idealists' line of thinking is that all 
these things can somehow be known in advance, with some certainty, and 
without a great deal of research.  To put it baldly, in my life3, I have 
learned that they cannot or with any degree of certainty.

Beekkeepers may know after a year or two on a location what things were like 
there the previous years, but crops rotate, spraying takes place, and 
without an airplane, it is often difficult to scout the surrounding 
territory for current conditions.  The flowering natural flora and timing in 
a region may vary widely from year to year due to rainfall or lack of it.

> On this side of the pond, eastern side of the country, our two most 
> consistent honey trees are pollen deficient.  So it is necessary to choose 
> sites that have a quality pollen source from other flora.  Particularly as 
> these two flower at the beginning of the season, and hopefully there will 
> be other flows later.  The research has been done, we now can look up the 
> protein quality of virtually any plant that is likely to be significant.

If so, the option to supplement is there, if the locations have other 
compelling advantages.

>> Pollens are unpredictable in timing
>
> That's interesting.  I would have thought with your defined seasons they 
> would have been pretty regular.

We have defined seasons?  Snow on August the first.  Frost on record every 
month of the year, but many years with 5 continuous months frost-free. 
Hottest day of the year comes in May, or maybe August.  Who knows from one 
year to the next?

> Yes one would expect some variation, but our experience is that the 
> quality of a specific pollen does not vary all that much.

The quantity and availability can be variable, as can each coloniy's ability 
to forage.

> I am a great believer in feeding an artificial diet.  Or at least I would 
> be if we had a good one ;-).  Some time ago I convinced our research mob 
> that such a diet was needed.  They agreed but couldn't find a competent 
> nutritionist to do the work, so we still wait.

Yeah.  I think we have been talking about that on honeybeeworld.  I actually 
think we do have a pretty good one.  Actually, we probably have many.

There are two approaches: bottom up and top down.  Starting at the top seems 
ideal, but there are logical flaws. (pointed out above).  We keep thinking 
the top down approach is best and that government or some company will step 
in and make some science magic and come up with siome ideal feed for us, but 
the fact is that cut and try is a very valid method of doing research and 
beekeepers are doing it.

I've had an inside look on the inside of some technical diet research, and 
frankly, I think a lot of it is voodoo practiced by grad students with 
impure motives who are not quite grown up and ready for the real world.

We stimulated quite a bit of interest in bee diets from our efforts here in 
Southern Alberta a decade back and several proprietary startups are a direct 
result of my queries along that line.  Everyone thinks they can get rich off 
beekeepers, especially if they can get a shot of government money upfront. I 
think that one such diet may be better than a simple diet (I don't know by 
how much, though), but I know another highly touted one simply does not 
work.  Period.

After that experience, I tend to go with the beekeepers opinions over 
current researchers turned promoters.  Fundamental research was done a long 
time ago and we know that soy, yeast, casein, eggs, and other cheap 
products. can provide a pretty close match to the bees needs when combined 
with pollen.  Some others think we need to add oils, minerals, etc., but 
then we get into other, more esoteric and theoretical additives... In 
Southern Alberta, we pretty much use yeast and soy and pollen.  Works for 
us.

Hack was going to send me his formula, and I'm looking forward to try it.  I 
love it when beekeepers get together and share their experience (Empirical 
data).  I get worried, though when we start theorizing.  Theorizing gets too 
weird, too fast for me.

For me, yeast, soy, and pollen seems to work.  My first rule is "do no 
harm", and I don't know about all the extras that some advocate.

FWIW, I've been thinking of doing a large, co-operative, net-based widely 
distributed beekeeper project, testing various products on the market 
against a number of benchmarks in real commercial hives, but the job would 
be huge and I can't figure out how to get paid. I know how to do it, but the 
details are a killer: getting fresh, representative product is one.  Keeping 
track of the activities and results as well as interpreting them is another.

That is another subject.

I'm going to hit, "send".  I usually poofread everting, but this is getting 
too long for me to read.

Wonder if anyone makes it to the bottom. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html