Pollen Substitutes vs. Supplements
The question of whether to use either a pollen "substitute" or a "supplement" in your honeybees' diet can be a confusing decision, especially if you are hobbyist beekeeper.  This confusion is common, and it arises over two issues: the definition of the terms "substitute" and "supplement", and the claims made by vendors of various feeding formulations.

Definition of Terms
There are two perspectives of thinking on how to define the term "substitute" or "supplement".  The first perspective, which is quite common, is simply to define the terms based on the ingredients of the mixture.  In this view, a pollen supplement is a mixture of pollen and other ingredients, and a substitute is an artificial, high-protein honeybee diet that contains no pollen.  To quote one person's e-mail on this issue:

"Supplements, by definition, contain a percentage of pollen. No 'substitute', by definition - no pollen, as in, a substitute for pollen - contains complete nutrition."

Here, the beekeeper is saying the ingredients define the term.  Their understanding is also that if a mixture does not contain pollen, it cannot provide complete nutrition.  These are commonly-held perspectives.

The second perspective on defining the two terms, which is a more common view in the hobbyist consumer market, is that the expected results of using the product defines the terms.  In this view, a pollen supplement is a mixture that supplements the honeybee diet, but cannot replace the need for natural pollen.  As such, a supplement does not provide complete nutrition, even if it contains pollen.  Also in this view, a pollen substitute is a mixture that can adequately substitute for pollen in the bee diet, so the effects of consuming a substitute vs. pure pollen are basically equivalent.  This is critical to brood and honey production in more arid environments where natural sources of pollen are not always readily available during the foraging season.

This second "results" perspective is the one BeeCARE takes in defining the two terms.  While it seems obvious from the term "substitute" that it does not contain pollen, it also seems obvious that a "substitute" implies no need for pollen.  It also seems obvious that the term "supplement" means that the mixture supplements, but does not replace, pollen in the honeybee diet.  The term "supplement" does not necessarily imply to a non-savvy consumer (a novice hobbyist) that a supplement contains pollen, nor is the issue of ingredients obviously relevant.

In choosing sides on this issue of confusion, we take the perspective we most commonly take toward understanding the meaning of any product label.  For example, you buy a refrigerator because of the product features, such as keeping food cold or frozen, dispensing ice on demand, etc.  You don't buy a refrigerator because of its "ingredients" (components).  You don't need to understand the physics or chemistry of the refrigeration process, nor do you need to understand anything about the design of various components within the refrigerator.  Why do you care how the manufacturer's design guarantees the line supplying water to the icemaker doesn't freeze up?  You only care that when you push a glass into the dispenser in the door, you get beautiful, abundant ice whenever you need it.  Along the same line of thinking, why do you care whether a feeding mixture contains pollen or any other particular ingredients for that matter?  Your interest is probably only knowing the effects of using the particular formulation in your apiary and how to use it properly to achieve those effects.  You would expect the effect of using a "supplement" would be to augment the bees diet when not enough natural pollen is available, but that this augmentation is only temporary until the bees can find enough pollen naturally to no longer require a supplement.  You might also expect the effect of using a true "substitute" is to guarantee proper nutrition year-round, even in an environment where little pollen is available, and as a result the bees' brood production and health is equivalent to what it would be with an ample, natural pollen source.

Vendor Claims and Product Labeling
We have yet to come across any vendor of either a "substitute" or a "supplement" who is willing to provide the results of empirical studies that indicate the performance of the product.  We also don't know of a vendor who will provide either a specific recipe of product ingredients or any simplistic, non-scientific product performance information that is useful to the typical customer.  Obviously and understandably, they don't want anyone to just be able to go and make it for themselves, doing away with the need to buy it from them.  But why not provide documented study results that show why, for example, you can trust a product to be a true pollen substitute?

We also haven't located a credible, authoritative source of information who can settle the issue once and for all about what the terms always mean and why.  No product out there would ever pass FDA certification if our industry were subject to such stringent truth-in-advertising and efficacy requirements as the pharmaceutical industry.  As it is, unfortunately, the consumer is left to not only make their own guess about the meaning of the terms "substitute" and "supplement", but they must also determine somehow whether the vendor's labeling means they'll get what they expect when they use the product.

Some vendors' pollen-containing formulations, which proffer themselves as pollen "supplements" (since they use the "ingredients" perspective), sometimes may not contain enough additional complete proteins, amino acids, vitamins, etc., to provide total nutrition in lieu of natural pollen. They may be able to supplement pollen but cannot be fed as a long-term substitute.  If the formulation is poor, the mixture certainly cannot be called a "substitute" just because it contains pollen.  On the other a hand, we would expect a product called a pollen "substitute" can be just that -- a complete substitute.

The only guarantee of complete nutrition is the proven effects of the ingredients in the product.  For example, a mixture of pure pollen has well-known qualities and could qualify as a clear-cut example of complete nutrition.  Outside the possibility of AFB-spore or bacterial contamination, pure pollen is an ideal food that doesn't require a controlled study to trust its results beforehand.  But pure pollen is relatively expensive.  A "pollen substitute" product, accompanied by usage-study documentation and/or credible testimonials, could also be demonstrated and trusted to provide complete nutrition.

Summary
The issue of confusion is, for one, the source of the definitions of the terms "substitute" and "supplement".  Do the terms arise from whether a mixture contains pollen, or whether it provides complete nutrition?  Our research, experience and (most importantly) consumer intuition have led us to define the two terms based on whether a mixture provides complete nutrition. Whether it contains pollen may actually be coincidental.  The other obvious issue of confusion arises from vendor labeling.  What definition of the terms "substitute" and "supplement" is the vendor using when they label their product?  And does the product actually perform as the vendor claims?  How can you know before buying the product?

Based on the lack of definitions and useful data, the only way to make a judgment at this point is to "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks."  In other words, make your best guess when selecting a product, and if you're happy with its performance, keep using it.  Possibly the reason so many take the "ingredients" perspective is because of the absence of useful information about the efficacy of vendor products.  Since we apparently can't really know how a product is effective without using it first, why not just understand the two terms based on a product's ingredients?  This seems the simple solution, but BeeCARE would rather take the truth-in-advertising approach of what a name more obviously implies.  In an ideal future beekeeping world, maybe we'll have the ultimate answer to these deeply troubling, life-disturbing dilemmas.

At BeeCARE, we are researching our own formulation of a true pollen substitute.  Our interest in developing our own product is initially for our use, and through our experience in our own apiaries to be able to market the product as a true "substitute" based on its performance, irrespective of the ingredients. Because of the high costs and quality-control risks involved in a pollen-containing formulation, we will tend toward developing a substitute that does not contain pollen.

So in summary, if you don't already have reliable information about or experience with a particular product, we recommend you use a pollen substitute instead of a supplement.  This is more likely to ensure your bees' diet is complete, regardless of whether they have a natural source of pollen.  And once you find a product you're satisfied with, stick with it unless you find something better.  The best determination of effectiveness always boils down to your own experience.

^{Copyright © 2002-2008 All Rights Reserved.}