Carpet of dead bees and brood

[Rob55]

I like the look of the syrup purely for convenience, making 2:1 is time consuming and messy, I work long hours and the convenience of pouring out of a tub sounds good to me!

 

[davnig]

What does "formulated for bees" mean? I've heard several people mention similar but never been clear how it is actually different/better than T&L.

After mixing up 6 litres of 2:1 last night, pouring into bottles to transport to apiary, I can certainly appreciate the practical benefits of buying a large container of Ambrosia - but is it actually any better for the bees?

As I understand it the main difference is that it is already inverted so the bees have less work to do, and this can positively affect the lactic acid levels. Talk to our TA mgr - he was talking about it last night

 

[clv101]

Ambrosia bee feed syrup is a liquid prepared food which comes very close to natural bee nutrition. It consists of fructise, glucose and sucrose. Because of its very high concentration it is not susceptible to microbiological degradation. Its very high fructose content (40% on dry weight) prevents crystallisation. Ambrosia bee food syrup is a balanced liquid prepared food with a low HMF content. the pH value is adjusted to suit bees and contributes to the creation of healthy and strong Spring colonies. Available in 17.5 litre (25kg) jerry cans or we can dispense into your own containers.

Well, yes, that's the quote from the manufactus but doesn't actually specify any health benefits.

As far as I can tell the benefits are all about convenience. Easier to pour so less chance of spill induced robbing, don't have to mix it, no worries about keeping it, doesn't crystallise etc.

The health benefits seem very sketchy though. That it's partially inverted, containing fructose, glucose as well as sucrose should be irrelevant to bee health as the bees have their own enzymes.

Is there any research on the benefits of partially inverted syrup compared to just sucrose?

The manufactures have a 28 page booklet on the product here:
http://www.nordzucker.de/fileadmin/downloads/Verbraucher/Ambrosia_Brochure_english.pdf
But, it doesn't contain any evidence on health benefits. If they existed, I'd certainly expect them to be in this booklet! The only comparative statements are related to 3:2 sugar syrup, not 2:1. A brief search through the peer-reviewed literature didn't turn up any studies on Nordzucker's Ambrosia. I remain unconvinced there's any health advantage to the bees from ambrosia compared with 2:1 syrup.

 

[Little John]

No, but they take it down a lot easier, don't need to invert it themselves and this can sometimes make a difference.

C'mon - let's think about it - it isn't all fructose - so how on earth do bees manage to metabolise the larger percentage of the syrup which isn't fructose ?

As we know, they use invertase, one of their natural enzymes.

This idea of "don't need to invert it themselves" is cobblers - are you seriously suggesting that bees somehow have the ability to ingest a fructose molecule, whilst avoiding the ingestion of an undesirable sucrose molecule ?

It's all ingested together. Ok, when these mixed sugars enter the metabolic pathways, the sucrose molecule will be split, and the fructose molecule will stay 'as is', and ATP's and all the rest will be generated ... but at that time the sugars are all in the form of a mixed 'soup'.

Those without a grounding in basic biochemistry may not realise that there is a bidirectional molecular interchange between glucose and fructose, by the action of phosphoglucose isomerase, and by courtesy of this enzyme together with hexokinase and phosphofructokinase, all sugars are then converted to fructose 1,6-bisphoshate.

So whether or not fructose was in the initial diet or not is completely and utterly irrelevant - it all ends up the same - eventually as CO2 and water, as we all know - with energy being created by virtue of the Krebs cycle, ATP production, and all the rest.

I guess some people just don't know when they're being conned ?

LJ

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

C'mon - let's think about it - it isn't all fructose - so how on earth do bees manage to metabolise the larger percentage of the syrup which isn't fructose ?

As we know, they use invertase, one of their natural enzymes.

This idea of "don't need to invert it themselves" is cobblers - are you seriously suggesting that bees somehow have the ability to ingest a fructose molecule, whilst avoiding the ingestion of an undesirable sucrose molecule ?

It's all ingested together. Ok, when these mixed sugars enter the metabolic pathways, the sucrose molecule will be split, and the fructose molecule will stay 'as is', and ATP's and all the rest will be generated ... but at that time the sugars are all in the form of a mixed 'soup'.

Those without a grounding in basic biochemistry may not realise that there is a bidirectional molecular interchange between glucose and fructose, by the action of phosphoglucose isomerase, and by courtesy of this enzyme together with hexokinase and phosphofructokinase, all sugars are then converted to fructose 1,6-bisphoshate.

So whether or not fructose was in the initial diet or not is completely and utterly irrelevant - it all ends up the same - eventually as CO2 and water, as we all know - with energy being created by virtue of the Krebs cycle, ATP production, and all the rest.

I guess some people just don't know when they're being conned ?

LJ

No, but I know it's a damned easier job popping a cap on a two gallon jerrycan than spending an evening up to my nuts in sugar and hot water.
I may not have spent my youth in the lofty spires of academia (wasn't Helsinki university by any chance was it? ) instead of wasting my time working my proverbials off on a building site before electing to serve the crown. But I do have good observational and analytical skills (goes with the territory) and have noticed that in general the bees take this down with more enthusiasm than sugar syrup and it's less work for me.
It's taken a few years for me to come to this decision and having weighed all the facts I have decided that the added cost is worth it for not having to process syrup myself That has been the deciding factor not the 'bag of magic beans' which I have had the sense not to take in.

 

[Finman]

.
Everybody in Finland feed with sugar syrup the hives, and we have a little bit more difficult winter for bees. I have feeded 50 years hives with 1:2 syrup.

No ambrosia and no inverting is needed. Inverting was known 50 years ago when I started beekeeping, but no one uses it.

You still continue that vain debating what is good for bees. Many guys say that dry sugar is best winter food for bees....Syrup makes nosema they say. I have not seen any research which say that.

Here is a 150 page booklet about bee feeding from Australia. There is a long story about sugar feeding, but not a word that bees need inverted sugar. booklet is from year 2005

A professional needs sugar in Australia, if he extracts all honey stores away from hive.
It is used too to inspire brood rearing when nature does not give nectar. Look page 18
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alkhazim/Documents/Books/كتاب تغذية النحل الاسترالي.pdf

Our professionals too polish all honey away with the help of excluder and start winter feeding at the beginning of August. They start so early because 1000 hives takes long time to take off the yield. Pradise Honey has 3000 hives. Company needs more workers to do the job. Hives rear winter bees during August. So feeding starts before winter bee laying has started.



.

 

[user 6228]

C'mon - let's think about it - it isn't all fructose - so how on earth do bees manage to metabolise the larger percentage of the syrup which isn't fructose ?

As we know, they use invertase, one of their natural enzymes.

This idea of "don't need to invert it themselves" is cobblers - are you seriously suggesting that bees somehow have the ability to ingest a fructose molecule, whilst avoiding the ingestion of an undesirable sucrose molecule ?

It's all ingested together. Ok, when these mixed sugars enter the metabolic pathways, the sucrose molecule will be split, and the fructose molecule will stay 'as is', and ATP's and all the rest will be generated ... but at that time the sugars are all in the form of a mixed 'soup'.

Those without a grounding in basic biochemistry may not realise that there is a bidirectional molecular interchange between glucose and fructose, by the action of phosphoglucose isomerase, and by courtesy of this enzyme together with hexokinase and phosphofructokinase, all sugars are then converted to fructose 1,6-bisphoshate.

So whether or not fructose was in the initial diet or not is completely and utterly irrelevant - it all ends up the same - eventually as CO2 and water, as we all know - with energy being created by virtue of the Krebs cycle, ATP production, and all the rest.

I guess some people just don't know when they're being conned ?

LJ

Arghhh not the Krebs cycle again!!!

memories of listening to my friends and the young bee keeper revising for Biochem exams, At least I didnt try to bore them with lagrangian dynamics, and optical correlation

 

[oliver90owner]

I like the look of the syrup purely for convenience, making 2:1 is time consuming and messy, I work long hours and the convenience of pouring out of a tub sounds good to me!

Sounds good to me, too.

Not fed sugar syrup in the autumn for at least 5 years, but exactly how long does it take?

The price differential is huge. Somewhere about twice the price for bought in feed.

Ten kilos of sugar into a pail and pour over 5 litres of boiling water. Store and cover. Ready for when required. Or fill pail to any level and pour over boiling water to the same level, stir and job is done. It is really very s i m p l e.

 

[clv101]

No, but I know it's a damned easier job popping a cap on a two gallon jerrycan than spending an evening up to my nuts in sugar and hot water.

It's taken a few years for me to come to this decision and having weighed all the facts I have decided that the added cost is worth it for not having to process syrup myself That has been the deciding factor not the 'bag of magic beans' which I have had the sense not to take in.

Totally agree, it is a lot more convenient and for many convenience is certainly worth the cost. What I'm concerned about are the sketchy claims about it actually being better for the bees - I'm yet so see any evidence that there's a benefit over 2:1 sugar syrup.

 

[clv101]

Ten kilos of sugar into a pail and pour over 5 litres of boiling water. Store and cover. Ready for when required. Or fill pail to any level and pour over boiling water to the same level, stir and job is done. It is really very s i m p l e.

In my experience just pouring over boiling water doesn't get it all dissolved - you end up with a lot left at the bottom. Last night it took me the best part of an hour to get 5kg of sugar dissolved into 2.5l of water, with a lot of siring.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

It is really very s i m p l e.

There's a difference between thinking about it and actually doing it

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

And i knew he wouldn't be able to resist this thread for long

Every tickle a trout!

 

[Finman]

I may not have spent my youth in the lofty spires of academia (wasn't Helsinki university by any chance was it? ) instead of wasting my time working my proverbials off on a building site before electing to serve the crown. But I do have.

Yes, you have expencive time but you are hanging here and spending your quality time on forum, and worse, spending others' quality time ..

Yes, time is too expencive to mix hot water and sugar....(sugar dilutes more quickly to hot water)

.Beekeeping is too expencive hobby if the time is so expencive.

Helsinki University does not teach how to mix sugar and water.
Finnish people learn it about at the age 2 years, when they drink their morning tea.

instead of wasting my time .

by writing 5300 comments to forum...




.

 

[Finman]

I like the look of the syrup purely for convenience, making 2:1 is time consuming and messy, I work long hours and the convenience of pouring out of a tub sounds good to me!

2 hives and mixing sugar is time consuming.....

Interesting - just priced 14kg of syrup with my local supplier, £17.50, seems a bit more expensive than sugar but a lot less hassle, think I will try it!

well...

We have a syrup service here and a tank lorry brings 67% syrup to your container.

Notice that it has 1/3 water and then transporting fee.

The sugar bought as syrup is exactly twice so expencive than sugar from Lidl.
If I use 600 euros for winter feeding, the syrup would cost 1200 euros.

Is my time so expencive that I do not accept 600 euros as a mixing fee? Non tax pure money ....

If you haver a company, what is your profit % from total cost? Is it 10%.

So you must sell for 6000 euros that you get profit 600 euros. Then you throw it to douple price sugar
....and the idea was.....

.



.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

by writing 5300 comments to forum...
.

Yes, shameful isn't it, still struggling to achieve a respectable 10,761

 

[itma]

As I understand it the main difference is that it is already inverted so the bees have less work to do, and this can positively affect the lactic acid levels. Talk to our TA mgr - he was talking about it last night

The bees only have less than half the water to remove, compared to 2:1 - that's where the work is involved (and its weather dependant work too).
2:1 imperial is about 62% sugar. Ambrosia is about 73%, capped Honey is about 80%.

To get that much sugar solids to stay dissolved, just like honey, it has to be inverted.

Thus, as another time-saver, the bees don't have the digestive time it takes to do the inversion themselves (hint: it is far from instant - ask a confectioner).


The net result is that the bees can take it from feeder to capped stores VERY much faster than they can with 2:1.
If you don't believe me, try a little and see for yourself. Almost instant stores.

I don't use it for all the feeding, but if its getting late and a colony is light, then its well worth reaching for the special stuff.
Yes it is more expensive than white sugar, but not much in terms of the annual budget. And it is MUCH cheaper than honey left on the hive.
Doesn't go off, so IMHO well worth having some to hand.

 

[Rob55]

Ok fair enough, I can see that it is more expensive than sugar, but for the small quanitity that I need it really isn't worth worrying about.

What's the best way to mix 2:1 quickly ? I have always stirred and stirred until the sugar has completely dissolved and this takes quite a while.

 

[user 6228]

The bees only have less than half the water to remove, compared to 2:1 - that's where the work is involved (and its weather dependant work too).
....

less weather dependent if you have the appropiate levels of insulation

 

[user 6228]

Yes, shameful isn't it, still struggling to achieve a respectable 10,761

I'll hold your coat

 

[Finman]

Ok fair enough, I can see that it is more expensive than sugar, but for the small quanitity that I need it really isn't worth worrying about.

What's the best way to mix 2:1 quickly ? I have always stirred and stirred until the sugar has completely dissolved and this takes quite a while.

Good heavens.....we call that phenomenom "new helplessness".

You put a bucket almost full of sugar....8 kg...or then bigger bucket like 15 litres.

then pour into it about 4,5 litre boiling water to the same level as sugar. Sugar will dilute to water quite soon with small stirring. Ask help from wife or from boy friend if it does not succeed.

It need not to be clear. If there is sugar crystals on the bottom of feeder, add mere weater to the bottom when feeding is over. Bees suck the rest of diluted sugar.

Don't try to be perfect.

.