>I see your point.  However we know from work done here that pollens with 30% protein are most desirable to have good robust, long lived bees, providing the amino acid profile is OK.  

> Agreed, although my understanding is that bees will do just as well on lower protein pollens provided that the other, non-protein, components do not interfere, counter the benefit or make the feed unattractive.

> So a substitute with the same would work the same.  

I don't see how that follows with any certainty.  Read on...

> The sugar and honey will be consumed as carbohydrate, the same as happens naturally with nectar or honey.

I think we can assume that, although we must reserve some doubt in that all the constituents are necessarily consumed as a mixture AFAIK, and that could conceivably be of some importance, as discussed here previously.

At any rate, those constituents -- sugar and honey -- are not a real issue even if they do affect metabolization or utilization of the protein.  They, along with water, are not indigestible or anti-nutrients, as may be the non-protein components of the supplements (and pollens) under consideration.  

Water content of the patties was not mentioned in the study, BTW, unless "sucrose" means sucrose _syrup_.  If water was an additional dilution, that further reduces the protein level of their patties.  Patties on the market are analysed by wet weight AFAIK.   

Unfortunately, the study is behind a pay wall and I have not read the entire piece, but merely the abstract and the Bee Culture article describing it, so I do not have all the details.  My issue here is mainly with the article, which I have read in its entirety.  I may have further comments later if/when I do see the study in full.  I apologize for not having yet read the study.  I'm hoping my usual sources will slip me a copy.  After reading the study I may have to eat some crow, but I doubt it.

Back to the issues: FWIW, IMO, a supplement with 30 to 35% crude protein to me seems a bit on the poor side, as both yeast and soy flour run around 40%.

Also -- to bring out one of my hobby horses -- crude protein level is a distraction from the real problem in supplementation: the non-nutrients and anti-nutrients which occur in both natural pollens and artificial diets.  I think the focus on crude protein is a mistake and all the research focusing on that aspect is misguided.

As I pay more attention, I am increasingly appalled at how the media and we, the public, seem to accept any study that comes along without a critical examination of its actual worth or meaning.  Many of these studies are designed to look at just one aspect of a topic, but are interpreted as having wider meaning.  We are seeing far too much of that lately.

I'd like to see magazines offer articles that offer critical analysis of studies, and which put the studies into _context_, rather than merely paraphrasing them uncritically.

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm