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:
Jerry J Bromenshenk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:47:51 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (101 lines)
As evidenced by the comments about the pros and cons of feeding honey
versus syrup and of natural versus unnatural, we need to be careful about
stating generalities based on beekeeping practices in any region or part of
the world.
 
A couple of years ago, a very knowledgeable scientist from central Europe
visited us and toured several commercial beekeeping operations in MT.
After the tours, he pointed out the "errors" being made by commerical
beekeepers.  Keep in mind that our beekeepers often are second or third
generation members of beekeeping families who run thousands of colonies.
Somehow, they have succeeded despite mites, diseases, the stresses of
migratory beekeeping, etc.
and the "errors"
 
Some of our beekeepers feed sugar syrup - not because it is a "better" food
(get some syrup with a high HMF content and see what happens), but because
it is cheaper AND easier to fill tank trucks with syrup and then fill
feeders with a hose (when you have to feed 1500 - 14,000 colonies this is
not a small task).  Typically, the truck drives through stockpile yards at
a slow pace.  One beekeeper pops the lid of the hive, the other pops in the
hose, and in a matter  of less than a minute they are on to the next hive.
 
Perhaps the greatest benefit of sugar syrup is that it shouldn't contain
any bee disease spores.
 
Other beekeepers hold back part of the previous years honey crop and argue
that their bees build faster on honey and do better than bees fed sugar or
sugar syrup.  They acknowledge that it usually costs them more to feed
honey - but that all depends on market values for sugar and honey,
transportations costs, etc. which vary from year to year.  Again the speed
of delivery is a major consideration.  These beekeepers rock their hives to
judge weight.  Light hives get a super of honey.  Again, a truck slowing
drives through the yard and the runners (beekeepers) add the supers as
needed(going as fast as they can walk).
 
Now, our friend from Europe argues that they all MUST feed sugar candy.
Too much moisture in the hive from honey or syrup!  AND some of beekeepers
might agree, they feed dry sugar in a tray on top of the hive (but only
when the bees can get fly to get water).  Our friend comes from a very
humid climate, and I would suspect that excess moisture in the winter or
spring could be a problem.  Montana is very dry by comparison.  Also, in
the country where candy is fed, a few hundred hives is a very large
operation.  Not so in Montana.
 
Our scientist also argues that candy would be cheaper, easier, and faster
to put in the hives.  But I have a hard time seeing how any approach can be
much faster than filling internal feeders with a hose that is about 3" in
diameter from a tank holding several hundred gallons of syrup.
 
No one produces 10# candy blocks in this part of the world, much less by
the tens of thousands.  Our beekeepers aren't set up to make it (and they
don't have to do anything to "make" the syrup, unless they are starting
with dry sugar and adding water).  You would have to have trucks piled high
with candy blocks - lots of manual labor.  You would also have to have
additional equipment - a feeder or super on top of the hive to hold the
candy block and protect it from rain. And, you would probably have to cover
the load on the truck to protect it from rain.
 
So, candy works fine in his country and maybe it has some benefits - but
his beekeepers are set up for it.  They can either make it or buy it.
 
With respect to honey dew versus floral honey. I have no idea of the
nutritional values of honey dew nectar versus floral nectar.  Again, the
availability of this form of "honey" varies by geographical location and
vegetation types.
 
In Europe, some beekeepers set their hives out in the forests to collect
honey dew.  In the U.S., I am not aware of any market for this specialty
honey.  I suspect that bees in the mountains and forested areas of western
MT gather honey dew, although probably not in late summer.  I also suspect
that all bees in most parts of the world gather some honey dew - honey dew
secreting aphids occur on lots of species of plants.  However, trees being
large plants offer lots of food to the aphids, lots of room for aphid
populations, and a large source of this secretion that is robbed by bees
and other insects.
 
Finally, bees evolved to overwinter on honey.  Feral colonies don't get
syrup or supplemental honey (unless they rob it from managed bee
operations).  The problem is that beekeepers take honey from the bees.  If
you steal most of their food stores, you may have to give some back.
Somehow, I doubt that sugar syrup (made by humans) is superior to the food
that the bees make and store for themselves.
 
Cheaper, maybe.  Easier to feed, probably.  Disease free, should be.
Nutritionally superior, doubtful.  Inferior, not measurably so - or lots of
beekeepers would not have been able to keep their bees alive.
 
Bottom line, feeding colonies that are low on food stores is better than
starvation.  Live bees in hives are certainly better than dead bees.
Whether bees fed candy, syrup, dry sugar, honey dew honey, or floral honeys
are better or worse off is a much more complex and difficult set of issues
to assess.
 
Cheers
 
 
 
Jerry J. Bromenshenk
[log in to unmask]
http://www.umt.edu/biology/bees

ATOM RSS1 RSS2