BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
allen dick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:26:30 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
> > What kind of life span difference are we talking about here-days , 
> > weeks..?

> The HFCS bees started dying at 6 days ( in both the 1974 & 2006 USDA-ARS 
> tests). The HFCS bees continued to die at a greater rate than the sucrose 
> fed bees until the end around day 29.

I seem to recall that the Canadian study showed about the same thing.  What 
is interesting is that bees on *both* diets started dying around the same 
time, in small numbers, and the numbers dying increased each day over time 
until they all were dead.

The bees on HFCS died slightly faster, and, as I recall, the difference in 
longevity was about 10%, with sucrose being better. The HFCS was of the type 
being used widely in Western Canada at the time.  In practice, this 
difference may or may not be significant, however, I have always preferred 
sucrose for wintering, and HFCS for spring feeding.

I think that the Joker in then deck is that, while sucrose syrup deliveries 
are always very nearly identical, HFCS batches have the potential to vary 
over a range of (acceptable for human food) compositions. A batch analysis 
should be available and accompany each HFCS load, but who is knowledgeable 
enough to read much past the assertion that it is first grade? 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---

ATOM RSS1 RSS2