a gm_charlie snip followed by > my comments...
 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.  

>in economic speak and the law of fixed proportions this would be inflection point in the yield curve whereby another limiting factor has kicked in to reduce the change in value for the curve.  Thru the entire arc of a yield curve (production curve in economic theory) each inflection point (change in slope) represents a limiting factor.  In most real world systems there are many limiting factors and not just one.

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.

>actually I though the question was about CO2 and not just carbon????  Carbon is an essential ingredient of soil organic matter and I don't think that is a problem????  

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?

>well as a micronutrient it would not be unusual for one of these to be a limiting factor in diet and imho would not really matter if you were talking about human, dog or bee nutrition.

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.

>Well then discuss any reasonable options that comes to mind.  Negating what other said does not move you down this road to an open discussion.  In debate as in politics dismantling does not require building anything.  And on occasion a simple solution or narrative works just fine.  Most systems of any interest now days are almost by definition complex but more complexity in the narrative does not necessarily add to a broader understanding of that system.
   
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.

> Imho very true but it is a work in progress.  Meanwhile we work on information relative to diet that is decades old and quite likely riddled with errors.  This is what one should expect when a body of work goes almost completely unfunded for multiple decades.  

>Since you wish to get beyond the doom and gloom it is an upbeat observation of mine that nutrition is a subject that students here take very seriously.

Gene in Central Texas

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