On 04/01/2013 14:50, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:36:27 +0000, wrote:

On 04/01/2013 13:14, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:07:22 +0000, wrote:

On 04/01/2013 12:56, Janet wrote:
In ,
says...

Good idea. Even better would be honey, if you've got it.

Would there be any risk of of passing on bee diseases? Not all honeys
have been heated.

Janet





Nor are they when bees make them.
I have read that honey contains antibodies which protect bees when they
subsequently eat it. When we 'steal' their supply, we're also stealing
that protection, as well as a valuable food supply. It is only my
(probably unpopular) opinion, but I think that whilst bees are going
through this serious crisis (of varoa mites and colony collapse), we
should stop harvesting their honey - or at least ration what we take -
until they fully recover.

Bacteria can't live in honey.



It depends on what you read. Even the two links below argue with each
other:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...angeredspecies

spores maybe.


Paragraph No7 suggests bacteria as well.



http://www.aschoonerofscience.com/re...ills-bacteria/

I can't find the article I originally read, unfortunately.
I still say we should ration the honey (and royal jelly) we take from
bees. They produce it because they need it, now more than ever. If I
could keep bees, I would, but our immediate neighbour's daughter has
been rushed to hospital a few times with anaphylactic shock, so bees may
be a risk too far.

Sugar is used to preserve fruit, because bacteria can't live in it. I
assumed that the same applies to honey. Honey is a form of sugar


Indeed, I knew about the sugar bit, but honey does seem to have some
bacteria present, which I wasn't aware of previously.
--
Spider
from high ground in SE London
gardening on clay