Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:49:51 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<C989614478A143BAAF44604EDA6E52E6@bobPC> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
> >Experiments done by commercial beekeepers have shown that bees being
> placed
> in pollination ( with the chemical contamination the bees are exposed to
> and
> bring back to the hive and store in the comb such as fungicides &
> pesticides) will come out of the pollination better when fed pollen
> substitute
> Also commercial beekeepers thought of this without help from researchers.
>
"However, immediately after the spray, the pollen substitute-fed colonies
reared significantly more brood than unfed colonies. The carbaryl-treated
and untreated colonies yielded similar amounts of honey, indicating that the
loss of several thousand foraging bees did not have a long-range affect on
the colonies."Herbert, E. W. Jr., H. Shimanuki & R. J. Argauer, 1983. Effect
of feeding pollen substitutes to colonies of honey bees (Hymenoptera:
Apidae) exposed to carbaryl. Environmental Entomology 12(3): 758-762.
Perhaps the commercial beeks could save themselves a lot of time by checking
out previous research--Herbert and Shimanuki were well known.
>then *perhaps*
> the reason *is not* a nutritional thing but simply the result of replacing
> the contaminated pollen with a non contaminated pollen source.
>
Or *perhaps* it is a nutritional thing. However, likely a combination of
nutrition, dilution, and reduced pollen foraging due to supplemental
feeding.
Randy Oliver
***********************************************
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
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
|
|