Hervé said:

>Those two sentences let me think that acide sucrose
>inversion or enzymatic inversion were equivalent. 

Acids were not mentioned at all.

The question was about the choice between using enzymes
to "prepare" sucrose solutions for bee feed, or simply feeding
(uninverted) sucrose.

> H. Guerriat explains the inverted sugar use because 
> it could lower bees work (but it is just an hypothesis.)

> "...That enzym is a protein whose important production by 
> bees requieres a huge physiologic effort.."

It is a very poor hypothesis, given that enzyme "production"
in bees is not something that can be avoided, just as you
cannot somehow forego producing the enzymes that are
used in your saliva.

So regardless of of much "physiological effort" one might 
calculate for production of digestive enzymes, removing 
some of the need for the use of the enzymes does not 
imply that the bees will produce LESS enzymes.  So, it 
appears that nothing is saved on a practical level, and
producing enzymes is not "extra work" that one can avoid.

Even a starving bee (or a starving man) still has enough 
enzymes to disgest food, so even a complete lack of food 
does not halt enzyme production.  A severe lack of water
can cause all sorts of basic chemistry to slow down, but
even dehydration does not halt it.  (From insects to elephants,  
we're all just basic elements, and we all turn to compost by and by...)

Bill said:

> Boiling the solution decreased its effectiveness. Adding tartaric acid and
> boiling it decreased it even more (led to more bee deaths). Corn syrup
> was next, and honey last. So best feed is sugar dissolved in warm water.

Oh yeah - you do not want the water to boil AFTER you add the sugar to the
water.  Sorry I was unclear on this.  We are NOT making taffy here!  :)

My only point was that hotter water should break down more sucrose into
glucose and fructose than merely "warm" water.  I honestly don't know why 
anyone would want to try to break down sugar syurp anyway.  

            jim