>> I think it highly improbable that we can't produce a nutritionally 
>> complete pollen substitute. There are two caveats. 
>> They are palatability and cost. 

> And the third: the wisdom of stimulating 
> the colonies at inappropriate times.

There is also the issue of particle size.
Bees can only be nourished by what they can suck up with their proboscis. 
Have you looked at your pollen supplement with a decent microscope?
Have you mixed some of it with water, and looked at the resulting solution
in terms of how much is filtered by a 50-micron mesh bag?
How about a 200 micron paint filter of the sort sold to filter honey?
Try it, you'll be shocked at how much remains in the filters.

Grinding is such a big factor it may mean that at least half of what you
feed cannot be consumed by the bees, but the only person who ever gave me
straight answers about "grinding" and "particle size" was Gordy Wardell, who
admitted that he could not afford the capital equipment, and had to farm out
his "bee diet" to a company willing to investing in the grinders.

So, solubility and particle size is likely a much more critical factor that
fancy lists of amino acids and such.

Fresh pollen is soft and easily breaks apart into individual grains, and
those grains do break down rapidly in water.

Thanksgiving approaches, and so does a snow storm.   The entire East Coast
from Newfoundland to DC may get snow Wednesday.  This is why I cook and host
rather than fly or drive.  The next few days should be interesting.  

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