>
> > MegaBee fared poorly, perhaps since it was not taken well.  I asked
> Dr Wardell (the developer) about that, and he said that MegaBee is designed
> to be fed as a patty along with simultaneous syrup feeding, since it has
> such a high protein content.  He feels that it was not a fair trial.
>

AFAIK, MegaBee was designed to be fed *in* syrup, and it was only on our
strong insistence that this was not practical for most applications that
MegaBee was made into patties.  In some ways I regret pushing the issue.

MegaBee *should* be a good diet, one would think, however, the emphasis on
high protein by MegaBee and some others may add no benefit over lower
protein recipes, if the diet is not consumed under many conditions and it
cost more for the extra perceived  ooomph.

IMO, the desire for high protein level in patties is based solely on the
observations that *pollens* scoring low on the protein scale do not provide
adequate nourishment.  AFAIK, that protein level measurement is based on
*dry weight*, in a feed that is naturally low in sugars.

Patties are a very different matter.  Pretty well all successful diets on
the market -- even the most basic ones -- have a protein *profile* that is
not too far off what was determined to be the basic needs of bees *plus*
sufficient sugar to make the diet attractive under a range of conditions.

The sugar (and water) is what drops the estimated protein level in patties.

Take out the sugar and water, and a basic yeast/soy recipe scores over 40%
protein!

Our vet tells us not to feed our dog a diet with too high a protein level.
 Apparently, people tend to assume that more protein is better value and,
out of good intent, do damage to their dogs' kidneys.  Above the required
level, protein can be harmful to dogs, apparently.

Bees are not dogs, and we really do not know if there is harm in high
protein diets, but for one thing, bees sometimes reject diets people think
should be good for them.

It seems obvious to me that since bees need sugar all the time, that adding
sugar in sufficient amounts to make the protein attractive is probably not a
bad idea.

I think this question --.sugar/protein ratio -- needs examination on the
faint chance that we are forcing the bees to take too much sugar with their
protein.  My guess is that they can separate the two and it is not an issue,
but, who knows?

Since there really is not much real difference, comparing protein levels has
become a marketing tool.

IMO, there are proportions which bes find attractive and that should tell us
something.

Pollen and supplements and their application are entirely different.

That must be understood.  They are two entirely different diets,
and consumed differently.

What happens to bees on a low-protein natural pollen diet in no way can be
assumed to relate to what occurs when a well-balanced protein supplement
is available in addition to natural feed, however, it seems to be a
popular idea.

At the current time, in the US, sugar and the other basic diet constituents
all cost around the same amount per pound, so the mix ratios should not be a
huge concern to beekeepers. I know some complain about having to pay patty
price for sugar and then transportation and think they want high-protein,
but that makes no sense to me.

A lower protein patty with more sugar at a cheaper price (and one that bees
will eat) is a better value than a high-protein, high proce patty that the
bees sometime signore or which requires special conditions to work.

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L