.

Cherry picking from my articles doesn't help.  The measure of bee nutrition
is set by the limiting nutrient, which may well be zinc.  Studies that
suggest that the zinc content of pollen may be decreasing is a topic well
worth discussion.

Hardly cherry picking,  much information about protiens levels in other creatures and possible down sides of too much protien,   TONS of research about increased sugers and biomass,   I have spent most of the summer researching and pondering how this applies.
You mention zinc,  may be,  but we dont know, so picking a detail such as your cited note  is not cherry picking,  it sticking to what we seem to know.  Espcially when it matches what  good husbandry in other areas shows.  
Not quite fair to claim cherry picking when I cited supporting documents on increased sugars. If we have a link showing that zinc is somehow the limiting factor in in protien uptake that would be great.  and would be an intersting topic to discuss.  You mention the "limiting factor" of bee nutrition?  what does that mean?  you suspect that there is something else in the Co2 paper thats limiting the potential uptake of protien?   That would be worthy of discussion.  But as I see it,  thats not where the conversation went.

What struck me in the conversation was what I see as confirmation bias.  This discussion as many go seem to be completly one sided,   In this case the decision was already made that to much Carbon was killing pollinators.  
Other questions raised  were and are completly ignored.   I find it odd  trying to discuss fact,  and your article seemed to have a strong clue,  and yet when cited  I am cherry picking?    seems to me maybe the comment that its zinc and if it is a limiting factor is something we have little info on.
My point was simple.  We didnt discuss the other options.  we stuck delibertly with the simple narritive.  unwilling to even discuss that there is anothe possibility,  one that may be upsides.  So instead of talking about what we don't know but should be trying to learn,  we stick with the concept that less protien is doom and gloom.   
For a place to have informed discussion,  I found that disapointing.  The paper itself was a good starting point for a serious discussion of what we dont know.  Something I have pointed out several times.  s beekeepers our actual knowledge of bee nutrition is woefully behind other areas.   Instead  we stuck to a narrative.
Just my opinion.

   

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