>
> >But could the flipside be that under less than ideal circumstances, i.e.
> considering that pathogens are constantly present and being vectored, that
> the colony is better off with an upregulated immune expression?


A "colony" does not have an upregulated immune expression--an individual
bee can.  So it depends upon one's sampling method to extrapolate to the
colony as a whole.  An upregulated immune system is costly to an organism.
The less upregulation, the more energy available for other physiological
tasks.  As Dr Spivak found, bees exposed to propolis tended to be able to
downregulate some immune expression--a good thing.

>Could it be that there is more upregulation with natural pollen than with
protein supplements similar to that seen with honey vs. sucrose or hfcs,
and could it be possible that the better results obtained with mixed
natural pollens are achieved in part through upregulation?

This could certainly be the case if exposure to similar toxins (as those in
natural pollen) were to be expected in the near future.  Exposure to
natural plant toxins has been demonstrated to improve bees' ability to
detox some manmade insecticides.

Again, I am in now way suggesting that any pollen sub currently on the
market is superior to mixed natural pollens.  On the other hand, several of
them are clearly superior to the "natural" rust fungus spores that my
colonies store as beebread in fall.

-- 
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