Robin said:

> It remains something of a puzzle why a group on this list is so
> insistent on crushing any idea that natural honey could possibly
> be more than flavoured sugar

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that honey was no more
than "flavoured sugar".  If the some points offered are
viewed as "crushing ideas", it would simply be due to the
concise and effective nature of the points made.  The specific
composition of honey is well-understood down to the parts-per-
trillion level, so the non-carbohydrate trace-level components
found in honey are also very well known.

> Instead u seem only to want to restrict debate by deriding
> the concepts in principle, unread.

I don't know who "u" might be, but I am puzzled.  How could
going back to "first principles" be an ineffective way of
thinking about an idea claimed to be "new"?  Using first
principles is less time-consuming, since it avoids the need
to slog through a tedious point-by-point analysis of a new
expression of an previously-addressed issue.

Also, how could participation in a "debate" be an attempt at
"restricting the debate"?  Participation tends to encourage
further debate. Is there any way to offer a divergent point
of view on issues like this one that would not result in
petulant cries of "foul"?

Apparently not.  If discussion results, it is labeled
"crushing ideas" or "restricting debate".  If no divergent
views were offered, the list members would likely be accused
of "ignoring" or "censoring" the same "idea".

In a "meritocracy of ideas" like this mailing list, the fact
that someone takes the time to respond is a sign of great
affection and respect, moreso if they choose to offer
contrasting views.  The alternative is to be merely ignored,
which would require much less effort.

> and, by extension, that sugar is as good a feed for bees as
> natural honey.

I would think that your own bookshelf would have convinced
you on this point.  You recently cited the book "Some Important
Operations in Bee Management", (1978 - IBRA) to the "irishbeekeeping"
mailing list http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/irishbeekeeping
and mentioned the work of E. F. Dill from 1925.

While the focus of his work was "inverted" versus "uninverted"
sugar syrups, it also compared both to honey.  As I recall,
the major points were:

a) "Take Rate" From Feeders:

        Plain sugar syrup - 100%
      Invertase Inverted syrup - 86%
      Acid Inverted syrup - 30%
      Honey - 30%

b) "The colonies fed uninverted sugar syrup lost fewest bees
   and least weight during the winter. Colonies fed invertase-
   inverted syrup lost more bees than colonies fed either
   uninverted syrup or honey, and lost twice as much weight
   as those fed uninverted syrup."  (Review of the data would
   allow comparison of honey with uninverted sugar syrup.)

That said, I think one must qualify one's criteria at least
to the point of the length of time when cleansing flights
would be fatal when discussing "feeds" and "overwintering".
To me, the period that the bees are confined seems to be
the mission-critical parameter.

> You even end your post by seeking to associate
> 'open-mindedness' with gullibility

In defense of the person who may have made this association,
I should point out that a COMPLETELY open mind can be
taken over by the first foolish idea to wander in.

> so anyone seeking new knowledge is a fool?

No, but mere newly-minted expressions of theories long-discredited
by science are, quite rightly, not viewed as "new", but are instead
viewed as claims, that if left unchallenged, might mislead beginning
beekeepers who stumble upon the archives of this list.

Everyone wants to help.
Everyone wants every beekeeper's hives to thrive.
Few agree on everything.
Most agree on a few things.
Basic issues, like "what's in honey?" are well-known.

a) Anyone who wants to claim that honey has some magical
   or mystical properties is welcome to do so, but are
   making completely unfounded claims without pointing to
   a specific set of components that can be shown to be
   present in honey.

b) To extrapolate this unfounded claim to the point of making
   general conclusions about honey being somehow generally
   "better" as a feed for bees is to attempt to contradict
   the general consensus of the scientific evidence on record.

c) To go even further, and lecture beekeepers about what they
   "should" or "should not do" given (a) and (b), may be what
   is prompting most of the more vigorous rebuttals.


                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::