> Such teaching is based upon the faulty assumption that natural is  
> always better. Natural
> pollen may in fact be deficient in essential nutrients and/or  
> contaminated by agricultural
> chemicals.

Not too sure which is the faulty assumption here...

Peter, I have issues with the above statement because you then go on  
to state that those natural pollens are contaminated with non-natural  
fungicides, pesticides, and and antibiotics for fruit.

Which only proves that the bees are foraging on sources that are also  
NOT kept naturally, not that bees kept naturally (whatever that means)  
do not do well.

If the theory is, and I will steal from Randy here..."fat bees are  
healthy bees"...and that the more naturally they come to this point  
the better off they are, then I think many of us will agree with this  
theory.

I will argue that it is possible to have bees forage on relatively  
safe sources.  I think the reality of this becomes even more so as the  
farmers in that region become more diversified, rotate more, and rely  
less on chemical solutions.  That is not an argument for or against  
GMO crops or large scale farming, just smart farming.

I am curious...is there anyone on this list that would be interested  
in testing my forage material?  Especially  pollen and propolis?

Richard Stewart
Carriage House Farm
North Bend, Ohio

An Ohio Century Farm Est. 1855

(513) 967-1106
http://www.carriagehousefarmllc.com
[log in to unmask]



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