-- randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dean clearly stated that he has not demonstrated that formic treated pollen has lessened nutritive value.
>>randy, you are correct, but a few dots need to be connected here. martha gilliam's research clearly states that the nutrition in the hive is dependent on microorganism activity. in fact, it is an interesting comparison of data to read martha gilliam talk about the fermentation starting when the bees collect the pollen (with microbes from their honey stomaches), and the data from penn state (maryann frazier) that states that pollen is contaminated with fluvalinate and coumaphos in the process of being collected by the bees.
>>also worth noting is the claims made about formic acid:
>>from:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ad_hoc/53420300WesternApiculturalSociety/WAS_Spring_2 007.pdf
"Not only does it work effectively to kill off parasitic mites,
formic acid (the active ingredient) has been proven to be a
formidable bactericide, fungicide and anti viral agent."
>>and
>>from:
http://www.miteaway.com/html/mite_awayii.php
"formic acid is a very toxic substance to everything living"
>>unless you don't believe that microbial activity has anything to do with nutrition in honeybees wrt pollen, it would be hard to imagine that formic acid has _no_ impact on the nutritive value of pollen.
>>"Identiącation and roles of non-pathogenic microŁora associated
with honey bees" by gilliam only seems to support the idea that pollen must be fermented for the bees to digest it properly.
>>deknow
****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *
****************************************************
