>
> Here's a MSM "Cliff Notes" type summary re royal jelly, with the relevant
> research citation at the bottom of the article:
> https://www.wired.com/2015/09/royal-jelly-isnt-makes-queen-bee-queen-bee/


An interesting topic. The article is clearly a "Cliff Notes" type summary,
and I don't appreciate several of the authorian liberties taken (such
as " Royal
jelly, which also is called "bee milk," looks like white snot." and " Worker
bees eat beebread (a type of fermented pollen) and honey. Nurse bees mash
this into a "worker jelly" and add glandular secretions as a garnish." I
don't think either are accurate statements). But their points are well
taken regardless.

The article appears to completely breeze over the fact that worker brood
food changes over the life of the brood. As the brood ages, yes they get
more honey and pollen, but they also get different combonations of
mandibular and hypopharyngeal gland secretions. The constantly changing
ratio of brood food can't be meaningless.

I had read in Caron and Connor's Honey Bee Biology and Beekeeping that it
was theorized that the amino acid within royal jelley, royalactin, was
primarily responsible for the switch between workers and queens in
developmental stages. The article in Wired appears to claim that is not
accurate. It also appears that some studies have refuted that (
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19349) while others have supported it
(https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10093). Admittedly, I neither have
the access, nor the time, to review all of these articles.

So, what says this highly educational crowd? What role does royalactin play
in queen development?

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