In article <[log in to unmask]>, Stefan Stangaciu
<[log in to unmask]> writes
> There are many studies, including in humans, which shows that a wrong
>diet can affect the genetical structure.
How? If I go and eat different food how is it going to alter my genetic
structure? Your argument smacks of Lamarckian theory, yet your are an
MD.
>
> I hope to be able to give you soon clear references but until then let
>me give you the general conclusion of only two of them:
Never mind the references, as these are usually studies conducted under
abnormal conditions in order to forcibly produce certain effects and
establish at what level they occur. They have little impact in the real
world.
>
>* pollen supplementation with less than 50% "raw" bee pollen in the mixture
>increases the risk of birth defects;
I do not feed pollen supplement or substitute, but I know that many
experienced members of this list do, and would rather do so even if the
first generation of spring brood raised on it had a reduced lifespan.
they would still live long enough to raise the next generation with
proper field gathered pollen. I am sure that even if your claim is true
most beekeepers would still like to run the risk of a few defective bees
emerging than have brood raising curtailed by pollen dearth. It is not
of any great benefit in our area as pollen dearths are not common, but
if they were I would certainly do it.
>
>* the same birth defects comes when a bee colony is fed excessively with
>refined sugar; in this second case, the birth defects comes to the third
>generation of bees.
Why use the term 'excessively'. No one has been talking about
excessively, just sensible supplementary pre-winter feeding, and
probably a little early spring stimulation before natural nectar sources
get going. If you force fed bees on pollen substitute and sugar syrup to
the exclusion of all else you would get sub standard bees, but that
would only be a lab experiment and no beekeeper in his right mind would
confine bees to such a situation.
> So, my friend, it is already a proven fact that excessive refined sugar
>feeding CAN give genetical problems.
>
Utter rubbish. Underdevelopment due to poor nutrition is NOT genetic
damage.
Examples if you wish?
Thalidomide victims have normal children. No genetic defect there, just
interfered with development.
Queens raised in an out of season emergency situation are often
undersized due to poor nutrition. Once into a full season they generally
get superceded and the new queen is perfectly normal. Again no genetic
defect, just suppressed development.
Then again perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you do have examples of altered DNA
in bees/humans given sugars or soya/yeast proteins. If so watch out for
the biggest food scare ever seen on gods earth.
> However, the problem is out there and you can never verify exactly if a
>queen breeder feeds or not excessively his bee colonies with sugar, in
>order to make sooner more nurse bees to nourish the queens.
Why again raise the term excessive? Would you rather he did not feed and
you then were forced to buy undernourished queens? That is of course
assuming that you could get underfed bees to produce them in the first
place.
> c) lack of propolis.
We have many colonies in which you can find little or no propolis.
We have others which can at certain times seem if you have dipped them
in a glue bucket. This is in the same apiaries at the same time. There
is no notable difference in performance, and I know which ones are the
easier to work with.
> Kind regards,
>
>Stefan.
Murray
--
Murray McGregor
|
