allen dick wrote:
>
> The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the 
> difference in longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better.
>
>
That correlates with the studies done in England many years ago. The 
difference between sucrose (white sugar) and HFCS was not substantial 
but measurable and in the 10-15% range. One problem with such a small 
difference is that it is not noticed in the spring. Which is why most 
arguments between beekeepers about winter feed are useless without a lab 
study.

> I think that the Joker in then deck is that, while sucrose syrup 
> deliveries are always very nearly identical, HFCS batches have the 
> potential to vary over a range of (acceptable for human food) 
> compositions. 

Which I agree with. I would say that the pecking order would be as far 
as what was delivered to your door:: granulated sugar (then converted to 
sugar syrup without boiling),  not-boiled sugar syrup, HFCS/boiled sugar 
syrup, and honey. Even sugar additives which were once approved 
(tartaric acid) in books like The Hive and the Honey Bee are harmful to 
bees.

The other issue is just what the bees are actually overwintering on. The 
bees do need field honey for the additional minerals it provides. But 
all honey is not equal, so some will cause more harm than good. But they 
will not do well on just sucrose or HFCS.

Winter feed is a bit more complex than just HFCS or sucrose.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---