> but I can't think of a situation where a bees would not be able to have
> any pollen, propolis, or honey (the conditions in this experiment).

I can - caged feeding studies, where pesticides are being tested.

This study has little or no practical value for working beekeepers, but has great practical value for research, as it implies that bees in pesticide studies, fed pure sugar water or pure HFCS laced with various amounts of pesticides will NOT be able to metabolize quite as much of the pesticide.  This implies that all of the LD50s and the NOECs found in “caged bee studies” are misleadingly low, as the bees in the studies never had access to pollen, and there was no pollen in the feed.  It cries out for a new "best practice" in caged bee feeding studies, and should be included in the "COLOSS Bee Book".

So, bees with access to trace levels of pollen have a better cytochrome P450 response.
Cytochrome P450 is the exact mechanism that bees use to metabolize various poisons, such as the trace-level amounts of systemic pesticides found in plant nectar and pollen.  It is precisely why bees are not harmed by low levels of many pesticides, and why there is no "build up" of low levels in bees over time.

Bees being fed HFCS or sugar don’t need to use their P450 mechanism so much, as the HFCS and sugar contain zero pesticides and/or poisons, so one in a properly playful mood could also argue that the study proves the "superior nature" of pure sugars fed to bees, as bees in situations where they can forage would have pollen in the hive and pure uncontaminated feed, as traces of pollen would end up in the feed as a result of in-hive handling regardless of if the feed was "foraged" or "fed".

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