>> >I sure get tired of all the hubub about protein content.  Protein 
>> >content does not tell anything very much IMO.

> ... in animal feeds in general, the number one denominator of cost and 
> value is generally protein content. ...Of course, as you state, the 
> protein must be "complete" for the species in question.  deGroot's 
> research indicates that a complete protein for bees matches that for 
> mammals ... For other factors, bees
> are very different from humans.  For bees, ascorbic acid is not a vitamin, 
> but cholesterol is.  Salt (sodium chloride) is also toxic to them at 
> levels
> that humans would find tasty.

That bears repeating.  What some people decide to feed their bees makes me 
wince.  We know that some things benefit the bees with no discernable ill 
effects.

Additionally, who cares what the "exact" protein level is, give or take a 
few percentage points, especially when ther is a natural variation in 
ingredients like pollen?  As long as it is within a band of acceptability, 
that is not an issue.  Studies have apparently determiend there is a fairly 
wide band of protein concentrations within which results are OK and outside 
of which results taper off.

What really counts is results per dollar, and protein content is only a 
very, very rough guide in that regard, and only when considered in 
conjunction with cost and consumption rates.  For that matter, we are not 
sure that there is any linear relationship between consumption and results, 
whatever they might be expected to be, and we also know that there are some 
protein feeds which, if you believed the label protein levels, are not very 
effective.

I really wonder what people are thinking.  Seems to me that at some point, a 
diet must be good enough.  There has to be a point at which the diet cannot 
be improved-- especially when we do not know what the other half  -- the 
natural portion -- is.  Once the bees are properly nourished, how can they 
be fed any better.  Are we to put superchargers on them?

There is a huge difference between caged bees in experiments and the 
free-foraging bees we manage.  In the former case, researchers must give 
bees a complete diet if we want them to survive, but in the real world, the 
bees are getting lots of things we cannot predict with any accuracy, so we 
are merely backstopping the natural diet on cold and windy days and 
augmenting inferior pollens with a more complete amino acid profile.

When I read the numerous articles of the sort that can be found here: 
http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/supplemental-feeding-of-honey-bee-colonies/ , 
I'm not sure that we did not reach that point of "close enough" years ago, 
and that the problems today and confusion about feeding results are not 
simply those of ingredient quality and freshness.  Fresheness is 
particularly where beekeepers are making up their own diets of material they 
are able to source reasonably close and at reasonable cost and may have to 
compromise, often without knowing.

It has been demonstrated beyond a doubt that stale ingredients can -- beyond 
being uneffective in promoting growth and health -- actually be harmful, and 
that ingredients deteriorate within months under some potentially normal 
conditions of storage, especially in the south.

I wonder how much beekeepers think they can save when they have to buy 
supplies in partial loads from suppliers who are unimpressed by the small 
amount of business they bring, and then find they have too much of this and 
too little of that and the mix is too stiff or too slack...  It seems to me 
that the large volume supplement/substitute outfits produce a superior 
product and it is as fresh as fresh can be -- assuming the beekeeper is 
sharp and ensures the product he buys has not sat in a warehouse for a year 
or more. (it happens).

People talk as if there is no limit to how far we can push bees.  If someone 
feeds a diet that results in demonstable great health and wintering as well 
as increased sealed brood, it seems that someone else immediately claims 
that he can beat that, and comes up with some interesting story.

Actually proving anything, especially more than once, as you know, is very 
difficult.

> Ditto with your "friend's" cat food.  Protein is higher than dog food, 
> which is why it costs more.  But not sure about the high sodium, low 
> potassium, and ground corn.

That is why I am sceptical.

>>Because bees will eat anything if you add enough sugar I don't know about 
>>cats.

> Since you "asked," cats don't have taste buds for sugar.  Dogs do.  That's 
> why cats don't beg for sweets.

I was trying to be funny. 

             ***********************************************
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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L