On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:01 PM, randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

 
From the graph
Protein content 18% to about 11%--close to a 30% reduction
Yes, all protein content measurements are calculated from the amount of
nitrogen present.


I believe I see the problem,  You referencing the whole picture.  I was referring to you prior post where you mentioned the last 25 yeas.    That changes it from roughly 350 to 390.   Which is a much smaller delta.I thought you said you were wondering if it was the reason your bees dont seem to boom as well in the last 25 years,  which got me to the 2 points of protein.

 The key question is  my mind is   "so what?"    We also know if we do the research that sugar levels are up,  and plant biomass is up,  so where do we draw that line?
Now key point that rising Co2 is probably something we should work on.  And that this is good research.  It does what research  should do,  raises even more questions.  As the author even points out.

The reason its a good discussion is actually really simple,  so let me wander off track a bit.  It does seem that you and Christine sen this as strong evidence.      But I wander over to the debate on pesticides. It quite clear to informed minds that despite all the doom and gloom over pesticides,  the number one issue for beekeepers is in fact Varro,  and beekeeper applied pesticides.  So as a result,  we have many people who are upset because guys like Jerry Hayes remind us of that.  We as  beekeepers in general are pretty foolish on the topic of pesticides,  with dang few even having a clue how to recognize a kill or the effects,  and about zero who actually even know how to take samples when it happens.   Yet despite that colossal level of ignorance on the topic,  we all know they Majority of beekeepers are blaming pesticides,  and have no  idea how many mites are in the box in sept. ( that tied is changing luckily)
So now,  back this point,  we throw out another red herring for the masses??  some other reason to blame others for beekeeping issues?  what happened to informed?   I posted several complete unknowns  none of which have been addressed.
What is the balance of fall proteins from?what percentage of the diet is from plants with declining protiensAre higher protein levels actually a perk in that time frame?Christine's point how is it digested? are the bees actually getting all that protein?
Increased sugars seem to me a larger benefit for fall bees in most northern climates,  much more so than proteins.
WE do know  that certain feeds such as goldenrod are actually hard on deep winter  bees ,  so  does that mean that northern bees do better with less proteins?Do the extra protein levels in dark winter feed lead to the dysentery issues?  exacerbating  nosema?

Let me throw in a personal anecdote (not data but anecdotal)  last year we had a killer frost in the first week of Nov.  followed by a month of 70 days  robbing was insane  hives already had enough feed on so open feeding was a bad plan,  so we opted in 2 yards to feed a dry sub thats around 42% protien.  Worked great,  robbing stopped and they really took to the sub.  The VAST majority of those hives collapsed. probably close to 80% loss.  Most graded as 12 frames in Nov,  and those that survived were 2 and 3 frames in late Jan.   Quite honestly until last month myself and Don were blaming the pollen sub,  to much protein? making tiny brood in Nov kill off winter bees??  Not sure,  but we have spent many hours of research and conversation and planning in order to not repeat it.

Its a good study,  its got an interesting theory.  It has little veracity in real world levels at this point ( all tunnel work to speak of)  and its applicability is a very good question,  with about zero real world knowledge at this point.
Add to that the actual availability of this plant,  (not everyone gets goldenrod) (it shows up as a non player in CA?)  and we have some questions.
Does this apply to all plants?  to some??  is the offset in proteins cancelled out by more availability? ( I get the point they may have to forage more and shorter life,  but is that offset by higher nectar values?)
Like it or not,  We are the talking heads of the beekeepers,  we as a group need to be very careful what straws we grasp at if we are to keep our brethren will informed and on point.
Randy is right,  its great research and question,  but I think personally we are way premature in speculation  that its relevant, to who,  and where?  
I don't like it when our groups look foolish,  so we need to be careful.   At lunch today I was again rereading ABJ,  Last Decembers issue,  one article was from a guy who got to attend one of the pollinator plan stakeholders meetings.   Its a painful read that looks more like the Manchurian candidate than realwriting.  I hope that as a group we can be more informed, and well thought out all the way on topics like this than we are on some of the current topics.
It sure seems to me that some of the positions mentioned here could be very easily twisted and convoluted.
I don't think your actually seeing a wall of naysayers,  but both the practical application and the evidence still need a lot more work.  I have no doubted the claim,  nor question the work  Its one of the better studies I have read. U of Wisconsin shows recent studies of Asters in general from 14-24% proteins.  Non as low as recorded in this report,  why is that?  As my knowledge and my queries on the subject have shown,  its in my opinion,  a tiny piece of data.
Were you to ask would I trade pollen protein levels for more pollen, and nectar,  I would simple tell you I need a lot more info to make that call. I think thats the stance we should have.  As it stands it does seem to me,  that those who winter in the north may actually be better off with less fall,  while those in the southern part that may not be true,  it also raises the question what is their availability on these suspected  lower protein pollens?
You mention the money spent on subs, your not the only one,  what I have learned is that trying to figure out which one and when is still black magic  and not science.  I know from raising other creatures as well that knowing and understanding the nutritional needs is key. When and where and how much depending on your location and goals,  is nowhere near any sort of Science as of yet.
I seem to recall your pollen trial that was published showed that there was not a huge perk from feeding before spring pollen's became available.  seems to me that work alone would make one question the value of high fall protein?

I would love to see this followed up and turned into practical knowledge,  at the moment though  that sure seems like pie in the sky.

Charles 



   

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