BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 31 Jan 2010 07:58:26 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (87 lines)
>> Also commercial beekeepers thought of this without help from researchers.

So you guys had to go all the way back to 1983  to find some research?  Does
1983 research really apply today? With say fungicides *used today* which 
were not
invented back then and the neonicotinoids?

 H. Shimanuki & R. J. Argauer, 1983.

I was around at the time and questioned "Shim" on what I felt was flawed
about the research you *found* in a search.

Search this:
If I had been looking over Langstroths shoulder in the 1800's I might have 
pointed out a few flaws in his design. Some in Europe say the movable frame 
was actually discovered first in Europe and Langstroth copied the idea.

 Perhaps the commercial beeks could save themselves a lot of time by
checking
> out previous research--Herbert and Shimanuki were well known.
>  >then *perhaps*

I hope before you guys leap on my posts you understand what I have said.

 Let me make myself very clear.

I am speaking to the lethal mixes of neonicotinoids and fungicides!

Find me some research in this area?

Why will not Bayer fund such research?  I asked awhile back on BEE-L.

*Randy said because it was not in the companies interests*

I agree!

>
>> the reason *is not* a nutritional thing but simply the result of
>> replacing
>> the contaminated pollen with a non contaminated pollen source.

The above has left out the word *perhaps* which changes the meaning a bit. I
listed two possible reasons bees do better when fed patties while in certain
pollinations. Yes I do believe the reason is because the bees are taking the
provided pollen sub instead of the poison pollen but my opinion but I added 
nutritional value as possible for your benefit.

again I posted;
1.contaminated pollen replaced by uncontaminated pollen sub

2. Nutritional improvement over the pollen available

On the road north.
Away from Wi-Fi for several days.
Thanks for the road info Grant!

bob








> Or *perhaps* it is a nutritional thing.  However, likely a combination of
> nutrition, dilution, and reduced pollen foraging due to supplemental
> feeding.
>
> Randy Oliver
>
>             ***********************************************
> 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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2