What was the setup for the pollen substitute feeding trial? Key Insights for Beekeepers

The setup for the pollen substitute feeding trial involved 30 bee colonies, each prepared with 10 frames of extracted drawn combs. A 1½-inch feeder rim was added to each colony, and they were randomly divided into two groups: one receiving pollen substitute patties (Treatment group) and the other given sham patties containing only sugar (Control group). The pollen substitute was delivered in bags placed under the crownboard on top of the brood frames, with the bees smoked down to avoid disturbance. Observations showed bees initially ignored the pollen substitute patties, preferring the sugar-only sham patties, suggesting limited interest in additional protein when natural pollen was abundant. Residues at hive entrances indicated bees might have consumed the substitute for sugar while discarding the protein.

Key Points Explained:

1. Colony Preparation:

   • 30 colonies were used, each standardized with 10 frames of extracted drawn combs to ensure uniformity in brood space and resources.
   • A 1½-inch feeder rim was added to each hive to accommodate the placement of patties without disrupting hive structure.

2. Randomized Group Assignment:

   • Colonies were randomly assigned to either the Treatment group (pollen substitute patties) or the Control group (sham patties with sugar only).
   • This randomization helps eliminate bias and ensures results are statistically valid.

3. Pollen Substitute Delivery:

   • The substitute was bagged and placed under the crownboard, directly on top of the brood frames.
   • The weight of the substitute flattened the bags, making them easy to position.
   • Bees were smoked down from the crownboard to minimize disturbance during placement.

4. Behavioral Observations:

   • Bees ignored pollen substitute patties initially, despite their sugar content, while consuming sham patties ravenously.
   • Residues at hive entrances suggested bees might have consumed sugar but discarded protein, indicating a preference for natural pollen when available.

5. Practical Implications:

   • The trial suggested no benefit to feeding pollen substitute when natural pollen of high nutritive value was abundant.
   • Beekeepers were advised not to waste money on substitutes under such conditions, as bees may prioritize natural sources.

This structured setup ensured controlled conditions to evaluate the efficacy and bee preference for pollen substitutes, providing actionable insights for beekeepers.

Summary Table:

Need expert advice on optimizing bee nutrition? Contact HONESTBEE for wholesale beekeeping solutions tailored to commercial apiaries and distributors.