Dee Lusby  wrote:
>
> Reply:
> Okay, then! How was the pollen then shown to be satisfactory for broodrearing?

"If not feed, then the bees go broodless".

Not a bad endorsement. Now there are issues like longevity and such but it would appear that feeding it trumps not feeding it - if you want bees to raise brood at that place and at that time.

As to the bees having or not having to "re-work it" and add things, does it matter? after all - they either did or did not, and it was efficacious. (There is going to be some "working or re-working" of the stuff simply in the act of moving it around). Don't get me wrong it would interesting to know the particulars, but the proof is in the rearing of brood or the lack there of.

The real question is: "Was there a quantifiable and significant difference in colonies fed irradiated pollen vs non-irradiated pollen, with respect to colony size, bee longevity, harvest, disease incidence etc"

One might speculate what the results to that experiment would be but that and $3.65 will get you a gallon of gas . . .

Keith

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************