Christine Gray wrote:

>My posts have been concerned with identifying possible causes for a colony
>to become sick with virus (surely a major issue?) but the core group of
>professional beekeepers on this list has concentrated on crushing the
>observation that artificial honey (made by feeding refined sugar or fructose
>syrup) is a deficient food for honeybees compared with their natural food  -
>honey--
>
Two assumptions here Robin, and they are both wrong.  A) I (as one of
the people postin on the thread) am not a proffessional beekeeper, but I
do have some knowledge of nutrition and physiology, B) no one was
crushing anything, this is a discussion forum and some folks may simply
not agree with you.

>and on a passing reference to greed being a poor motive for action.
>Such unbalanced response is curious - 'methinks the lady doth protest too
>much'
>
Indeed particulalry if one uses a word count to identify whom is
protesting too much . . . .

> - and we can consider a possible reason in a moment.
>First, greed is defined as ' a rapacious desire for more than one needs or
>deserves, of food, wealth or power'. It has been listed as one of the seven
>deadly sins, but with all respect to the religious, avoidance of greed is
>surely just a common-sense rule for living in social groups, and we do not
>need to invoke the Great Beekeeper.   And note it is by definition a
>relative term. A professional beekeeper who needs to feed his family may
>justly take more from his bees than a hobby beekeeper living comfortably on
>a secure pension.
>
Hunh?  I am sorry, I completely disagree.  Then again this has little to
do with nutrition.  The value of the nectar as a source of nutrition to
the bee has little to do with the needs of the beekeeper - lets stay
focused.


>  Bees consume honey at 3 times - with brood food and pollen
>when growing as larvae, when completing their development on emergence
>(worker bees add 93% to the nitrogen in their heads within  5 days of
>emergence, 76% in the abdomen and 37% in the thorax - due to eating pollen
>but they must take honey for liquid as well)
>
Nope - they take nectar or watered down honey.  Let us compare apple
juice with apple juice and not marmalade here (eh Jim?).  Eating honey
for liquid (and you really mean water here - or you should) would be
silly - there is precious little in it per calorie burned.

> , and as adult bees before
>leaving to forage.
>
They are not drinking strait honey - they water it down, diluting it
many fold.

>  So the research must be thorough if it is to rule out
>the possibility that something in honey is needed before bees can make full
>use of pollen.  Colonies  fed sugar need to be compared on amount of brood
>raised, length of life of individual bees, resistance to disease and storage
>of surplus.
>
>Why imagine that there COULD be some constituent in honey that aids
>digestion of pollen, or supplies some micro-nutrient otherwise missing?  I
>admit the hypothesis arises only from respect for evolution.
>
You need to lose the idea that there is something driving evolution with
a purpose - plants produce nectar to attract bees, not to nourish them.

>  Flowers
>produce nectar solely - so far as we know - to attract pollinators,
>especially bees.
>
I am with you except for the especially bees part - there are a plethera
of nectar eaters out there, a great many are not bees.

>  If nectar of pure sugar would do as well - or better - why
>do plants expend energy on adding traces of minerals, enzymes, vitamins.
>minerals and (we are told) other components not yet analysed?
>
Do you presume that everything in nectar is there because the plant is
expending energy to place it there?

>  It would seem
>that pollen is produced for the use of the plant itself - so that would not
>be the place to put components designed only to help the pollinators.
>
Sure it would - I think Jim explained this quite well in his response.
 But again, plants are not placing anything in pollen or honey to
nourish bees.  Does the beet in your garden swell with sugar and
betacaroteins and other goodies for you, or itself?  I think you have
very self-centered beets, as they should be. Flowers make pollen to
reproduce and nectar to lure pollenators.  The fact that some animals
exploit these materials for their nutrition is not relavent.

>I have been challenged to name some component in honey NOT available to bees
>through pollen.  That of course I cannot do, not being a scientist.
>
It is the core question.

>  But
>even if there is nothing unique to honey, there is still the question of
>delivery. We know nurse bees eat pollen and honey
>
Watered honey or preferentially nectar.  This is an important detail

>before making brood
> food - but do we know that say foragers continue to eat pollen, and not
>rely on the traces in the honey they stock up on before a flight?
>
Use of watered honey in this context would be metabolically mot
efficient if the bee had to 'handle' nothing other than the energy, i.e.
the sugar.  Indeed, we know that the respiratory index for honey is 1,
strongly suggesting simple carbohydrate metabolism.

>  Do bees
>always have an instinct to provide themselves a balanced diet?
>
Nope, not always.

>The issue of benefit to humans is really another thread but let's go on.
>Here the supposition that may be something more to honey than fine-tasting
>sugar again comes from reflecting on the evolutionary process, and pointing
>to an apparent dis-continuity. Folklore (Ancient Eygptian, Assyrians,
>Babylonians, Hebrews,  Romans, Greek, mediaeval is full of references to the
>power of honey to promote health (as well as specific healing of the sick) -
>but in this scientific rational age beekeepers are saying honey is only nice
>sugar (which does not promote health).     Were all those civilisations
>simply fooling themselves?
>
Robin, do you really want to get into a lengthy list of cockamamie
things that previous civilizations did that were later shown to be,
well, cockamamie?  Medicine is rife with snake oil.  Heck, half the
stuff we do today will be looked at with amusement and in some cases
shock in 10-20 years.

>  There was also a long tradition of using herbs
>for healing.  Was that all fraud?
>
Not all, but a good deal of it was, or was replaced wth more effective
treatments.  Not everything from the past is wrong, however, not
everythign from the past that has endured is, by default, accurate,
effective or sensible.

> The case against fraud is the length of
>the tradition - probably extending back thousands of years.
>
Tradition is no case against fraud.  Read up on the plague.  Millions of
Europeans were dying at the hands of their "phycicians" who refused to
break tradition and lance the buboes.  Elsewhere, where no such
traditional prohibitions existed the dealth toll was lower.  I knnow it
sounds comforting to thing that grannies old cure for this or that
actually worked, but generally speaking granny lacked some data and made
some bad choices also.

>  Humans have had
>the same brains as us for something like 250,000 years - as hunter gatherers
>they had time on their hands and would have had the curiosity to try eating
>various foods.  If repeatedly no benefit was found from a certain plant, it
>seems unlikely the rumour of its usefullness could have survived in so long
>an aural tradition - where all knowledge was passed on by word of mouth, it
>was not written down and known only to a few specialists.
>
Millions of people have been eating twinkies
(http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2003/0316/twinkies.htm) for 73+
years.  And they keep doing it.  Is that sound nutrition?

> So could it be
>that there ARE herbal components that promote human health - and living to
>old age - and that these same substances would be found in honey if we only
>looked?
>
There are indeed benefits to the consumption of some herbal products.
 To suggest that they make a meaningful difference found in the
quantities present in honey is stretching it.

>   The A-Z of Vital Vitamins & Minerals still lists various plants
>for specific benefits - cranberry maintains bladder and kidney health, horse
>chestnut seeds tighten the vascular system, clinical studies have shown St
>John's Wort can have anti-depressant action (I quote few of many).
>
>  My
>apiary is covered in St John's Wort and surrounded by chestnuts.  Of course
>it is difficult to prove benefit to those who start a test clinically well -
>how do you measure how much 'weller' they get? But people can feel degrees
>of wellness themselves.
>
Robin, just because one wants to beleive that honey is a miraculous
distillation of all that is good and pure won't make it so.  I think a
little honesty is involved here - particulalry because this is a food
product.  Toute it to be the elixir of life and when people find out it
is just good old honey, you might have some explaining to do.  Call it
what it is, selel it for a fair price and no one gets cries foul.

>Where new research does seem to be making an impact is on the use of honey
>in healing - particularly for burns, and for ulcers.
>
>  Honey has an undoubted
>anti-bactericidal effect, due in part to the high osmolarity (bacteria are
>deprived of water), high acidity and breakdown of glucose to hydrogen
>peroxide at the interface with the wound.
>
I have yet to see this become a standard medical therapy - in fact, it
is barely a fringe thing.  There are far better ways to deal with
wounds.  Honey, with its variable coposition will never be accepted by
maintstream medicine.  It will be stidued, and the active
ingredients/formulation will simply be repackaged in such a was as to
ensure consistancy.  Or it will be dropped depending on how efficaceous
it turns out to be.

> Pioneer work by Peter Molan on
>Manuka honey from New Zealand has resulted in samples of Manuka honey being
>graded 1-10 for antibacterial activity, and then sold for several times the
>price of food honey. This is especially clever as Manuka does not actually
>taste well.
>
As a clever marketing ploy counts as biomedical research?  Bleach has
considerable antibacterial activity, and different dilutions can be
graded in much the same way.  I would not suggest it as a systemic
treatment though.  Facts, must be kept in context.  Heck, red hot iron
has antibacterial properties, but that went out of vogue a long time ago
. . . .

> But research by Dr Rose Cooper at Cardiff has shown pasture
>honey is almost as effective - so any honey might be, but every sample
>varies according to the nectar content.  But here's the bad news.  Cooper
>included artificial honey in the tests in 1999/2000 for 'minimum inhibition
>concentrations (%v/v) of honey for bacteria isolated from infected wounds' ,
>testing 7 bacteria.  Against MRSA (a growing problem in hospitals) Manuka
>needed a concentration of 2.3, pasture 2.9 but artificial honey >30.
>Artificial honey was at its best against Escherichia coli : 4.0; 7.8; 23.4.
>Now you could say specific bactercidal activity has no relevance to
>maintaining general health - but bacterial damage is increasingly implicated
>in say stomach cancer for example , so keeping down bacteria could be as
>important in the well as the sick.
>
And?  Killing bacteria in a test tube is childs play.  How would you
suggest one maintains a 2.3+ percentage of honey in gastric juice?
 Would one even need to?  Fo how long?  Does it penetrate the crypts
where the bacterial (helicobacter) you allude to reside?  Are they even
affected by honey as are the bacteria you mention in the studies above?
 One must be careful when interpreting such information and then
applying it to the clinical setting.  Life is more complicated than a
test tube.

>The low performance of artificial honey may explain the virulence of attack
>on the bare idea that some honies could be good for you.
>
I doubt it.

>  If there was more
>research - and more honies joined Manuka in the higher price bracket -
>'naturally produced'  honey from careful hobby beekeepers will gain.
>
If it is based on flimsy evidence and clever marketing, then I would
have no sympathy should it ever some back to bite the producer in the
fanny.  Careful what you claim - people are incresingly becoming
sensitive to sensationalism.  And there is that honesty thing.

>However, honey from beekeepers feeding sugar is likely to be found at the
>low end of the anti-bactericidal range and so will remain a low value
>product.  Certainly, we have heard some professionals deride the whole
>notion of honey being healthful.   Is this really a clever marketing ploy?
>
That is just it Robin - it is not a marketing ploy, just keeping bees
alive under particular circumstances.

>Would the public buy the notion of 'honey for health' , if backed by more
>research? The reasons honey is bought in USA were surveyed by the National
>Honey Board and updated in the summary by Ann Harman in Bee Biz April 2003.
>Honey is bought as a tasty sweetener - but also for treating colds and flu.
>
As a simply tasty throat coat.  Let us not try to make more of it than
there is.  Even my grandmother, who never missed a sore throat/cough
with a spoonful of honey knew that.

>Sales rise in winter for that reason.
>
Sales of a great many comfort food rise in the winter - what of it?  Can
we talk nutrition?

> I am accused of reciting a mantra concerning natural honey and its benefits.
>
This is a poor accusation, a mantra is usially a *short* repetative
phrase.  ;)  Just poking fun  . . . .

>I hope I have only an open mind, and wonder why others have not, since at
>present we cannot be sure either way until there is more research.
>
>  But at
>this time of life so much has ended in disillusion - let me hang on to the
>thought that keeping bees in accordance with nature is good for me.
>
Robin you can hang onto any idea you like, but please don't think you
have cornered the market on the open mind.  One might reasonably suggest
that you simply refuse to see the evidence that syrup is equivalent in
some applications and superior in others as a bee feed.

>
>Robin Dartington
>Who agrees with Hamlet that 'there is more in this heaven and earth than you
>dream of in your philosophy, Horatio'.
>

Keith, who, had he been stading there with those boys would have
replied, Yeah Hamlet, there is so much to heaven and earth that we
really don't need to run about making up other bits in an attempt to
enrich it further" Benson

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::