> It appears that the consensus is that GMO pollen is less nutritious to bees.  Where is the evidence? 

You have sort of summed it up: there is no evidence, and so if there is any consensus it would not be based on evidence. But among whom does such a consensus exist? No one I know. Crops are genetically modified for various reasons which have nothing to do with the nutritional content of the pollen. Pollen is produced by the plant for purposes entirely other than to feed insects. 

As a matter of fact, I have written an exhaustive article on pollen which will most likely run in the March article of the ABJ. One thing that is clear is that bees need a variety of pollen sources, and that not one pollen source possesses all the nutritional requirements, any more than any one food item would have all the requirements for people. Bees, livestock, people all need a varied diet to thrive.

One thing that came out at the ABRC is that there is a difference between short term and long term effects of pollen and also pollen supplements. Bees may appear to thrive on single source pollen or get a big boost from pollen patties. But there may also be a crash a month or two later, if the nutritional content is unbalanced or inadequate. In the livestock industry all sorts of stimulants are used and their impact on health can be very negative.

A beekeeper may be able to get a few extra frames of bees in the colonies by feeding pollen supplements yet create long term damage by stimulating them. The long term effects of diets has not been sufficiently studied to make statements about it, but it is an important issue for anyone concerned about pollinator sustainability.

PLB

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm