>
> >Experiments done by commercial beekeepers have shown that bees being
> placed
> in pollination ( with the chemical contamination the bees are exposed to
> and
> bring back to the hive and store in the comb such as fungicides &
> pesticides) will come out of the pollination better when fed pollen
> substitute
> Also commercial beekeepers thought of this without help from researchers.
>

 "However, immediately after the spray, the pollen substitute-fed colonies
reared significantly more brood than unfed colonies. The carbaryl-treated
and untreated colonies yielded similar amounts of honey, indicating that the
loss of several thousand foraging bees did not have a long-range affect on
the colonies."Herbert, E. W. Jr., H. Shimanuki & R. J. Argauer, 1983. Effect
of feeding pollen substitutes to colonies of honey bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae) exposed to carbaryl. Environmental Entomology 12(3): 758-762.

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

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

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