> The mantra is oft repeated here that 'all beekeeping is local'.
It is, and it is true, but we are going beyond that discussion, from "local"
to "specific to each hive and each day"..
The issue here is that each and every hive, every location and every day is
different, with different needs and different resources, and, moreover, the
environment and weather are unpredictable.
Simply put, achieving an exact and perfect match to the nutitional needs of
each and every hive, everywhere -- whatever that might be -- is not likley
to happen naturally in any consistent or continuous fashion. We should
give up that idea.
Can we manage that artificailly? Good question.
I know, nature is wonderful,, and our bugs have marvelous capabilities that
are beyond our comprehension to buffer, adapt and make do, BUT, we come back
to the fact that we are -- for our own selfish reasons -- looking for a way
to ensure the best continuous nutritional result possible.
It seems obvious to me that the only way to ensure that is not to try to
merely match minimal needs, but to provide a continuous *surplus*. We look
for that in queen cells -- *excess* feed at all times -- so why do we not
look for and provide excess feed for the hive itself? Because we are cheap
and want to believe that we don't need to, that is why.
It seems we're prepared top believe in magic if necesary, and love to quote
those who wrote and write romantically about bees being perfectly adapted
superbeings and eschew direct scientific examination of the question.
It also appears that many would rather pay hundreds of dollars for packages
every year and waste time and effort cleaning up dead-outs than pay a few
dollars for feed.
Feeding used to be a pain, and subject to many errors in content and
application, but it is not that hard now that good pre-made paties are
available cheaply everywhere. It takes minutes to just slap some on the
hives every few weeks all year (except winter) and watch. Once hives get
striong, it seems that the bees will eat the patties even off the top bars
of supers and from the floors. Of course, the centre of the hive is still
best.
Back to the question of what to feed? A technical and synthesized expensive
product designed to replace pollen, or a simple supplement with or without
pollen. I suppose there are several answers, depending on circumstance.
Some targets require a sharpshooter with a rifle, and some require a
shotgun.
The rifle approach is to try to determine the nutitional needs of a
'typical' (non-existant) colony and try to match it exactly. Then find how
to synthesize that diet, and feed. This is the idealist's approach. The
problems with this approach become quickly obvious after even a little
thought.
There are far too many variables. Too many assumptions must be made for any
one solution to be found and feed synthesis is complex and expensive.
Highly processes and unstated ingredients may be called in. 'Intuitively",
as my linear algebra prof used to say, here is virtually no likelihood that
such an approach would be a closer fit for many situations than a shotgun
approach -- cheap and plentifull -- produces.
Here is the shotgun approach. Rather than trying to provide an ideal,
perfectly matched diet. We know already which nutrients are most likely to
be deficient in a hive and which are most important to have on hand at all
times, so we find a cheap, palatable, non-spoiling way to deliver it, feed
plenty and often, and are done. Some beekeepers have been doing just that.
> Get the nutrition right. Sure there are other problems, but get the
> nutrition right and half of them disappear, or, are, at least reduced.
That is the message. However, the doubt and confusion arise in deciding what
is "right"?. Perfectionists wait around for the ideal while practical
beekeepers feed. what is at hand.
Many small beekeepers and some idealistic, simplistic writers think, that
they can somehow rely on nature to supply that nutrition 24/7/365 and
everywhere. It is *possible* that some can, but frankly I doubt it. The
successful commercials have been increasingly catching on and I doubt that
there are many in North America who do not use at least some
supplementation.
> With respect it seems simple to me. Avoid locations with poor or
> deficient pollens (toxic), seek out those with good pollens.
I find it strange, having been around awhile, that this idea seems obvious
to some writers. Personally, I am having problems imagining circumstances
for that to be true. For what you seem to be suggesting to be a complete
and adequate solution to the problems presented, I have to assume that you
find yourself in
1.) a large region where predicable, stable weather, reliable rainfall and
where plantings and blooming flora do not change and
2.) where toxic sprays are never used. Moreover you must
3.) be free from competition from other beekeepers who can crowd an area,
and you must
4.) be free of the mites that suck the 'blood' of North American bees and
increase their nutritional needs.
If so, I can understand why you don't see a problem.
Beekeepers, both large and small, where I have been , at least, often have
to choose or settle for locations -- temporary or longer term -- that are
less than desireable nutritionally for considerations other than the pollen
availability. I am not going to spell out the details, because 'most any
commercial beekeeper will understand, and we have been over that before.
The underlying assumption of the idealists' line of thinking is that all
these things can somehow be known in advance, with some certainty, and
without a great deal of research. To put it baldly, in my life3, I have
learned that they cannot or with any degree of certainty.
Beekkeepers may know after a year or two on a location what things were like
there the previous years, but crops rotate, spraying takes place, and
without an airplane, it is often difficult to scout the surrounding
territory for current conditions. The flowering natural flora and timing in
a region may vary widely from year to year due to rainfall or lack of it.
> On this side of the pond, eastern side of the country, our two most
> consistent honey trees are pollen deficient. So it is necessary to choose
> sites that have a quality pollen source from other flora. Particularly as
> these two flower at the beginning of the season, and hopefully there will
> be other flows later. The research has been done, we now can look up the
> protein quality of virtually any plant that is likely to be significant.
If so, the option to supplement is there, if the locations have other
compelling advantages.
>> Pollens are unpredictable in timing
>
> That's interesting. I would have thought with your defined seasons they
> would have been pretty regular.
We have defined seasons? Snow on August the first. Frost on record every
month of the year, but many years with 5 continuous months frost-free.
Hottest day of the year comes in May, or maybe August. Who knows from one
year to the next?
> Yes one would expect some variation, but our experience is that the
> quality of a specific pollen does not vary all that much.
The quantity and availability can be variable, as can each coloniy's ability
to forage.
> I am a great believer in feeding an artificial diet. Or at least I would
> be if we had a good one ;-). Some time ago I convinced our research mob
> that such a diet was needed. They agreed but couldn't find a competent
> nutritionist to do the work, so we still wait.
Yeah. I think we have been talking about that on honeybeeworld. I actually
think we do have a pretty good one. Actually, we probably have many.
There are two approaches: bottom up and top down. Starting at the top seems
ideal, but there are logical flaws. (pointed out above). We keep thinking
the top down approach is best and that government or some company will step
in and make some science magic and come up with siome ideal feed for us, but
the fact is that cut and try is a very valid method of doing research and
beekeepers are doing it.
I've had an inside look on the inside of some technical diet research, and
frankly, I think a lot of it is voodoo practiced by grad students with
impure motives who are not quite grown up and ready for the real world.
We stimulated quite a bit of interest in bee diets from our efforts here in
Southern Alberta a decade back and several proprietary startups are a direct
result of my queries along that line. Everyone thinks they can get rich off
beekeepers, especially if they can get a shot of government money upfront. I
think that one such diet may be better than a simple diet (I don't know by
how much, though), but I know another highly touted one simply does not
work. Period.
After that experience, I tend to go with the beekeepers opinions over
current researchers turned promoters. Fundamental research was done a long
time ago and we know that soy, yeast, casein, eggs, and other cheap
products. can provide a pretty close match to the bees needs when combined
with pollen. Some others think we need to add oils, minerals, etc., but
then we get into other, more esoteric and theoretical additives... In
Southern Alberta, we pretty much use yeast and soy and pollen. Works for
us.
Hack was going to send me his formula, and I'm looking forward to try it. I
love it when beekeepers get together and share their experience (Empirical
data). I get worried, though when we start theorizing. Theorizing gets too
weird, too fast for me.
For me, yeast, soy, and pollen seems to work. My first rule is "do no
harm", and I don't know about all the extras that some advocate.
FWIW, I've been thinking of doing a large, co-operative, net-based widely
distributed beekeeper project, testing various products on the market
against a number of benchmarks in real commercial hives, but the job would
be huge and I can't figure out how to get paid. I know how to do it, but the
details are a killer: getting fresh, representative product is one. Keeping
track of the activities and results as well as interpreting them is another.
That is another subject.
I'm going to hit, "send". I usually poofread everting, but this is getting
too long for me to read.
Wonder if anyone makes it to the bottom.
***********************************************
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
|