BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:21:19 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
>if they can't get fresh, the preserved pollen is just as good -- but not
better.

Pollen, as with virtually every other food, degrades nutritionally over
time.  In the Fig. 1 of our follow up paper, we found that in 3 out of 4
assessments, beebread even slightly aged underperformed that which was more
fresh.  We need to replicate these findings, but they do not support the
claim that preserved pollen is "just as good."

And yes, a few recent studies found that the alcohol in nectar and freshly
fermented beebread is attractive to bees.

I had the opportunity this week to spend time with Kirk Anderson and some
of his collaborators.  They are making great strides in furthering our
understanding of the complexities of the bee microbiome, and Kirk is
adamant that we have a long way to go before we can claim to fully
understand it.

We also discussed how to investigate to what extent bees derive further
nutrition from the bacterial fermentation of the pollen exines in their
hindgut prior to defecation.


-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2