> If as deknow says frogs and other water associated animals
> and insects (added insects) are in an exchanging contact,
> by drinking at same watering sites concerning fungi, etc,
> that then on bodies of bees for example from same, are
> carried back to hives and fungi, mold,and yeast growth get
> going in, and this is being seen all over, then bees in USA
> have same access, would this not be assumed?
It is not unreasonable to assume that various microorganisms are shared
around by numerous mechanisms, including sharing watering places. It is
also not unreasonable to assume that trucking bees around will speed the
process, and also possibly jump what would have been natural barriers to
transmission of new parasites and/or toxic microorganisms, including
possibly ones introduced from exotic locations by other mechanisms yet.
> Jaycox back in late 1970s/early 1980s used to teach at meetings that soy
> flour and other substitutes were only good for one bee generation I think
> and then on (with each cycle of brood) the next generations have problems,
> that get worse with each generation of bees produced, that included
> problems in feeding of the mixtures fed and also greatly shortened the
> lives of the bees.
Well, I think we all agree, more or less, with this today, with the
exception of several recent and unproven entrants into the market who hype
their product as pollen substitutes or *replacements*, not just supplements.
Justin Scmidt was saying last year in a meeting in Alberta that his recent
work demonstrated that nothing has changed and that there is no *substitute*
for real pollen that he has been able to find or create as of that date, but
things can change. We'll see.
Again, though, I have to make a distinction _and it is important_, The
studies you cite were caged bee studies or studies with bees that had *no
significant natural pollen* for one or more generations, AFAIK. The method
was to supply bees which had NO natural pollen with claimed or intended
*substitutes*. In each case, to varying extents, 1.) the bees raised brood
they would not have raised otherwise and 2.) the brood of these and any
succeeding generations declined in viability and vigour, and lifespan of
these artificially raised bees were shorter than those of bees fed a pollen
diet.
This is very different than where free-flying bees on reasonably good forage
are provided with a known-good supplement, in season, for a limiterd period,
and according to best practices. In all these studies, I know about,
including recent ones by Medhat, in Alberta, the hives provided with
standard supplement (BeePro, or soy/yeast plus sugar) _in addition to what
natural pollen they could find__did very significantly better in several
important metrics than bees not so supplemented. These bees were followed
for several generations, and honey production measured as well. There were
no detectible adverse effects.
There is absolutely no doubt: 1.) standard supplements can and do augment
bee health and production without demonstrated adverse effects when used
correctly, and 2.) no substitute has been proven long-term in the field to
work--(yet)!
> Would not this then when compounded with varroa chewing (etc....)
In short, No. The assumptions underlying this premise are false.
The idea that the cause of recent troubles are that new micro-organisms
being passed around by various mechanisms--including common watering
sources--has merit, though, is and an idea that is under consideration, BUT
this idea is pure conjecture until one can be detected and isolated.
There is so much we do not and cannot know. The last time we had this sort
of thing (yes something like it happens regularly), I suggested that the oil
companies could, one day, change an ingredient in gasoline, and it could
conceivably have subtle effects throughout the entire country. Who knows
what is really going on out there?
I suspect it is something simpler, but...
allen
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
