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 --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::