On 14/02/2012 3:01 AM, randy oliver wrote:
> >Several (New Zealand)beekeepers protested that the list excluded some pollen sources
> that were well-known to be excellent for colony buildup.  The point was
> that protein content alone was not necessarily the best indicator for how
> nutritious a pollen was.

We notice the same, well sort of.  Interesting comment though as one 
would try to place bees where they had a mixed pollen source for spring 
build up. I suspect that in most of these cases there is in fact mixed 
pollen coming in (same colour) .  As well we notice that some pollen is 
more attractive than others, possibly because of oil content.  And again 
there is the possibility that if the amino acid profile is OK then 
increased consumption may well overcome the total protein lack.

Also, how good a pollen appears to be depends on how soon after its flow 
you ask the bees to work.  And of course how good the one previous to 
that was.
>
> >What I'm trying to get at, is that pollen analysis is a great tool, but the
> bottom line is that bee nutritional needs are still not completely
> understood, and that we must be careful in concluding the degree of
> nutritional value for any specific pollen.
Well, you have to start somewhere.

Geoff Manning

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm