Treatment-free label

[Hivemaker.]

The 27 days is an average over 3 years of winters I think. " No other factors (number of bees in a cage, climatic conditions, etc.)

If the average life span over winter is 27 days then after they have had a couple of months brood break the colony would be dead, mini nucs even faster.

 

[olriley]

If the average life span over winter is 27 days then after they have had a couple of months brood break the colony would be dead, mini nucs even faster.

They are not quoting winter lifespans, although they consider that themselves to be working with 'winter bees'. They state:

"Study was conducted during autumn of 2012, in controled conditions, by using 48 mini laboratory cages with capacity of 150-200 bees each"

 

[Finman]

"Study was conducted during autumn of 2012, in controled conditions, by using 48 mini laboratory cages with capacity of 150-200 bees each"

Impossible to say, what they found out.

 

[Murox]

If the average life span over winter is 27 days then after they have had a couple of months brood break the colony would be dead, mini nucs even faster.

yes , not enough information given. I had missed the 'conducted in autumn' bit.

 

[Murox]

yes , not enough information given. I had missed the 'conducted in autumn' bit.

thinking a little - they probably did allow the test cages to die.

 

[olriley]

Impossible to say, what they found out.

They found out that in the bees which were fed honey in their experiment lived longer, and upon dissection had died with healthier (or less-damaged) guts, than those fed sugar syrup (either plain, invert, or a fortified in various ways).

What is unclear (and to be fair not attempted by the authors) is whether the experimental findings have any ramifications to real-life beekeeping. Obviously, common practice - and the voices of some experienced beekeepers - suggest that any additional lifespan manifested to bees by leaving honey is outweighed economically by the value of harvesting the honey and replacing with sugar...

 

[Finman]

They found out that in the bees which were fed honey in their experiment lived longer, and upon dissection had died with healthier (or less-damaged) guts, than those fed sugar syrup (either plain, invert, or a fortified in various ways).

...

Actually in conclusion they said that enzyme inverted syrup, and plain syrup was as good as honey, but acid inverted was the worst. In another place they say something else.


The whole story is unbelievable.

Finnish beekeepers have over wintered so much beehives, that nothing new is needed. We do not invert sugar syrup. They do well without it.

We know too, that if bees do not get good pollen in autumn, it weakens winter hardiness. But that has been known 70 years.

 

[olriley]

Actually in conclusion they said that enzyme inverted syrup, and plain syrup was as good as honey, but acid inverted was the worst. In another place they say something else.

They don't quite say 'as good as' but they do say EIS and syrup yielded 'similar' results to honey, which is an odd choice of words, given the clear trend in their results ... well that's subjectivity for you (the words I mean) ... maybe they were afraid to draw bolder conclusions?

Anyway its a single experimental study so lets not give it any more weight than it deserves, but it does at least provide a counterpoint to claims that feeding sugar instead of honey has no effect at all.

Finnish beekeepers have over wintered so much beehives, that nothing new is needed.

I don't doubt you are very good at it. But perhaps there is something deeper than the simple metric of winter survival rate. Could there be some other more subtle knock-on effects of having longer-lived, healthier winter bees in the hive? What if it influenced for instance, I don't know; spring build-up, disease resistance, long-term hive health? Pure speculation but its a sad (and dangerous) day when we think there's nothing left to learn.

Another thought came to me while I was mulling this paper over. If its findings can be taken at face value, they highlight an ethical anomaly in beekeeping compared to other branches of farming. Elsewhere, practices which increase the lifespan, health or wellbeing of an animal, are generally recognised as 'higher welfare'. This is encouraged either through minimum standards, or driven by customer demand and willingness to pay a premium. But it wasn't always thus. Until relatively recently in farming, the notion of free-range eggs would have been economically unthinkable for a commercial producer. Ditto organic milk. Some farmers probably stood around laughing about the crackpot down the road with his 'happy cows'. The consumer landscape has changed in the last 25 years. Of course we don't generally think about bees like that - they are not as cuddly I suppose - but its food for thought, at least for me.

Goodnight and happy beekeeping!