>
> >Randy, anything to say or paper to read and do own comparison
> and conclutions?


I hate it when findings are over extrapolated.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with sub fed as patties, which is not
stored in the combs.

I was experimenting with a single brand of dry-fed pollen sub in fall, and
by using fluorescent tracer, found that the bees readily incorporated it
into beebread (within an hour of placing the sub out for feeding).  I
noticed a benefit to those colonies that immediately consumed the sub
immediately, but not so much later in the season (when they'd be consuming
the stored sub).

So I questioned whether fermented sub remained a good food source, since
the particles lacked the protective exines of natural pollen grains.  I
asked the Anderson lab to investigate, and sent them samples.

Patrick Mae's took on the project.  One thing to realize is that
researchers, especially those first publishing, tend to sex up their
findings, as do the institutions for which they work.

I'm comfortable with saying that bees prefer fresh pollen and sub to
fermented aged beebread (natural or sub).
This particular sub, when aged as beebread, appeared to caused gut
dysbiosis when it was later consumed, notably in the ileum, favoring one
pathogenic bacteria.

This study has not been replicated, nor tested with other sub
formulations.  The nosema link is weak.

Take home: feeding dry sub in autumn in order to provide winter protein to
your hives may not be a good idea.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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