This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am currently running an experiment with different feeding regimes and the impacts on worker bee survival. I have found that bees fed royal jelly experience a higher mortality than when fed an artificial protein source.In light of this, can anyone guide me to some literature on royal jelly and it's impacts on survival of bees?? thank you Chiraag Chiraag boodhoo 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As a beekeeper (Bk) I am interested in the mechanics of harvesting royal jelly (RJ), as it's my opinion that RJ is surrounded by more myth than fact. Whenever I speak to other Bk.'s who promote RJ they suddenly don't want to speak about it or are so vague that one wonders where their information comes from. Can you point to any scientific data regarding both harvesting and human consumption?
The way in which it is fed to the larvae directly from the nurse bee in minute quantities and produced "on the fly", would mean that harvesting would effectively kill that brood or at least weaken the colony by slowing it's development and thus potentially destroying the hive come the winter, making the price far higher than those advertised - maybe they do not sell the real thing, who would know?
It may also be true that the component parts of RJ are beneficial but surely they can be more easily obtained from other sources?
Kind regards Adrian Wells
If there is all this other stuff, B-complex vitamins and whatnot, in royal jelly, how in the heck is the acetylcholine 'pure'? eritain 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The word pure in this context makes no sense. You can only say, in royal jelly there is also acetylcholine. -- Fackel 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added an alternative POV on the dietary claims, with link to some criticism on quackwatch.
I note that you say that Royal Jelly is secreted from the heads of young workers. I would agree with this and would point out that these young bees, or nurse bees, do not forage at this stage in their lives. So your device at the entrance to the hive (a spittoon? Sorry couldn't help that)will not work! Maybe you are talking about pollen? Could you please clarify?
Kind regards Adrian Wells
The Futurama reference referred to "Space honey" not "royal jelly" (which was present in the episode but insignificant). I am removing it. Escuerdo 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The space honey was all over the place, but the ROYAL JELLY equivalent was only in one place, and served the same purpose as actual royal jelly. It was a pretty obvious reference to RJ (only with a different name, can't remember it at the moment) esp. when you consider its queen-related purpose and what the characters say when they find it (again, after walking past tons of the normal honey). This is a valid pop culture, just as much so as how Scientology was the obvious target of mockery in the funny 2nd season episode of Millennium. :) 199.214.27.87 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (update: the Slurm Factory episode was prolly also a less direct reference, but the "Leela, wake up!" episode is irrefutable. :) )
"Consult your Doctor before taking this, or any other substance you even remotely suspect may cause death." What a great quote! But seriously, isn't it a bit of a silly line? Loserdog 3000 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding a {{External links|October 2006}} to the article as there seems to be an insane amount of sources cited compared to the length of the article. It's probably not the right template for this, and i think the article warrants a {{pagenumbers}} as well, but i suppose i'll let someone else who knows more about templates to take care of that :)
I heard once that former President Reagan was on a Royal Jelly diet - he would consume a mass of it weekly - if anyone can verify this statement, it can be part of the 'funny' notes next to science fiction on the main page.
-- Gautam3 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What does royal jelly taste like? It doesn't mention that here, and I'm sure that more than a few readers are wondering this.
HI, i am currently running experiments on the effects of different feeding regimes on the health of worker bees.I have found that the bees are shown to experience higher mortality when fed diets containing RJ than when fed diets containing an artificial protein source. I am still looking for possible explanations for this. Can anyone guide me to some relevant literature? Thank you Chiraag boodhoo Chiraag boodhoo 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have been written by an opponent of the commercial royal jelly industry. If so, its lack of neutrality needs to be corrected. Mal7798 ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Editor Request: As I'm currently on mobile and the site doesn't seem to want to let me introduce proper paragraph breaks (they either weren't registering or registered huge!), could someone on desktop or who knows the proper mobile formatting code fix the above formatting correction so that it shows up correctly with a single blank space between the individual paragraphs?
Mine either would have no line break or created these huge spacing gaps. The changes are effectively superfucial to improve readability and correct typing errors.
I wanted it to have a single space gap between paragraphs without eliminating the paragraph indentations necessary for proper legibility. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 01:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
According to the German article that cites a newspaper article as a source, royal jelly doesn't trigger anything, it's the absence of regular nutrition, honey and pollen (which deactivate certain queen-genes through DNA_methylation), that makes a queen become a queen. I can't find the published article since it seems to have been only in print, but Australian scientists are supposed to have found that out. Any experts here who can comment? 91.16.57.119 ( talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a picture of royal jelly, illustrating the article, or of bee pollen (compare pictures here)? -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
"also including a relatively high amount (5%) of fatty acids." - relative to what? 67.246.176.132 ( talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A search of "royal jelly" on www.pubmed.gov now yields 371 research articles. Perhaps we should say just that in this article. I was looking to verify hearsay on estrogenic effects and Down's syndrome and found: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18830443 . However, in scrolling through all these titles, it's like "take your pick" for whatever malady you have and see if you can find an authoritative article. As a friend and an editor, I would send people on this pubmed search with the warning that finding just one published study does not mean much.
Suggested addition to the article: "A search of the PubMed database yields hundreds of research papers on the analysis and possible uses of Royal Jelly."
Comments? Bridgettttttte babble poop 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Sometimes honey or beeswax are added to the royal jelly, which is thought to aid its preservation."
This kind of sentence is ridiculous. It sounds like the typical myth of a remote mountain community where local wisdom prevails over scientific truth. If this is not verifiable, I would remove it.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If you allow a remark: I don't know which is the case but, if there exists some product that has "beeswax or honey added" for supposed preservative effect, then the above statement describes that practice correctly. Though it might be pointed out that the preservative effect is not proven and, therefore the addition in fact does not prolong the shelf life but instead results in pumping up the quantity of a product while lowering it's actual content of royal jelly. Which does not necessarily mean that the jelly buffed or diluted with addition of other (cheaper) ingredients is less effective since the effectiveness of royal jelly seems to be unproven in the first place, but nevertheless it can be regarded as a way of selling a mixture of cheaper substances under the name of a well sought after substance. (Which is a common practice in all kind of business.) (
80.98.114.70 (
talk)
12:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)).
In my opinion, the information on health effects is quite unsatisfactory and sounds biased. The article cites papers that raise doubts around the health benefits of the royal jelly, but does not at all mention scientific evidence supporting the benefits, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549483/ https://www.usab-tm.ro/utilizatori/ZOOTEHNIE/file/REVISTA%202011/vol%2044/2/BIOCHIM/Pavel.pdf
Am I missing something or such scientific reports are simply ignored?
Koroner ( talk) 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Worker bees and queens do not have an "identical clonal nature". Worker bees, like queens, grow from fertilised eggs; each worker is unique, a child of the queen and one of the dozen or more drones that she mated with. This is well described on the Queen bee wikipedia page.
Even drones are not clones. The queen is diploid (two different versions of each gene, one from each parent), the drone is haploid, with only one of each gene. Which copy of each gene a drone receives is essentially random. Drones laid by the same queen will not be identical, neither clones of the Queen nor of each other.
I'll be changing that text as soon as I can think of an appropriate wording. Itsbruce ( talk) 07:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
How much of different vitamins does royal jelly really have (in general)? Fao.org source used in the current article (archived here) claims that 1 g of fresh royal jelly has 159-265 mg of pantothenic acid (15900-26500 mg/100 g), for example, and cites a source from 1988. This amount is insane. Other sources like this one claim that it has about 52.8 mg of pantothenic acid per 100 g of jelly, but both sources used this publication use values that ultimately trace back to this publication from 1989. Also, the current version of this article claim that "Royal jelly is 67% water...". What percentages are these? Mass, volume, molarity or something else? 5-HT2AR ( talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 19 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mpankey.
— Assignment last updated by Mirandafast ( talk) 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am currently running an experiment with different feeding regimes and the impacts on worker bee survival. I have found that bees fed royal jelly experience a higher mortality than when fed an artificial protein source.In light of this, can anyone guide me to some literature on royal jelly and it's impacts on survival of bees?? thank you Chiraag Chiraag boodhoo 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As a beekeeper (Bk) I am interested in the mechanics of harvesting royal jelly (RJ), as it's my opinion that RJ is surrounded by more myth than fact. Whenever I speak to other Bk.'s who promote RJ they suddenly don't want to speak about it or are so vague that one wonders where their information comes from. Can you point to any scientific data regarding both harvesting and human consumption?
The way in which it is fed to the larvae directly from the nurse bee in minute quantities and produced "on the fly", would mean that harvesting would effectively kill that brood or at least weaken the colony by slowing it's development and thus potentially destroying the hive come the winter, making the price far higher than those advertised - maybe they do not sell the real thing, who would know?
It may also be true that the component parts of RJ are beneficial but surely they can be more easily obtained from other sources?
Kind regards Adrian Wells
If there is all this other stuff, B-complex vitamins and whatnot, in royal jelly, how in the heck is the acetylcholine 'pure'? eritain 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The word pure in this context makes no sense. You can only say, in royal jelly there is also acetylcholine. -- Fackel 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added an alternative POV on the dietary claims, with link to some criticism on quackwatch.
I note that you say that Royal Jelly is secreted from the heads of young workers. I would agree with this and would point out that these young bees, or nurse bees, do not forage at this stage in their lives. So your device at the entrance to the hive (a spittoon? Sorry couldn't help that)will not work! Maybe you are talking about pollen? Could you please clarify?
Kind regards Adrian Wells
The Futurama reference referred to "Space honey" not "royal jelly" (which was present in the episode but insignificant). I am removing it. Escuerdo 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The space honey was all over the place, but the ROYAL JELLY equivalent was only in one place, and served the same purpose as actual royal jelly. It was a pretty obvious reference to RJ (only with a different name, can't remember it at the moment) esp. when you consider its queen-related purpose and what the characters say when they find it (again, after walking past tons of the normal honey). This is a valid pop culture, just as much so as how Scientology was the obvious target of mockery in the funny 2nd season episode of Millennium. :) 199.214.27.87 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (update: the Slurm Factory episode was prolly also a less direct reference, but the "Leela, wake up!" episode is irrefutable. :) )
"Consult your Doctor before taking this, or any other substance you even remotely suspect may cause death." What a great quote! But seriously, isn't it a bit of a silly line? Loserdog 3000 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding a {{External links|October 2006}} to the article as there seems to be an insane amount of sources cited compared to the length of the article. It's probably not the right template for this, and i think the article warrants a {{pagenumbers}} as well, but i suppose i'll let someone else who knows more about templates to take care of that :)
I heard once that former President Reagan was on a Royal Jelly diet - he would consume a mass of it weekly - if anyone can verify this statement, it can be part of the 'funny' notes next to science fiction on the main page.
-- Gautam3 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What does royal jelly taste like? It doesn't mention that here, and I'm sure that more than a few readers are wondering this.
HI, i am currently running experiments on the effects of different feeding regimes on the health of worker bees.I have found that the bees are shown to experience higher mortality when fed diets containing RJ than when fed diets containing an artificial protein source. I am still looking for possible explanations for this. Can anyone guide me to some relevant literature? Thank you Chiraag boodhoo Chiraag boodhoo 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have been written by an opponent of the commercial royal jelly industry. If so, its lack of neutrality needs to be corrected. Mal7798 ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Editor Request: As I'm currently on mobile and the site doesn't seem to want to let me introduce proper paragraph breaks (they either weren't registering or registered huge!), could someone on desktop or who knows the proper mobile formatting code fix the above formatting correction so that it shows up correctly with a single blank space between the individual paragraphs?
Mine either would have no line break or created these huge spacing gaps. The changes are effectively superfucial to improve readability and correct typing errors.
I wanted it to have a single space gap between paragraphs without eliminating the paragraph indentations necessary for proper legibility. Dragoon91786 ( talk) 01:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
According to the German article that cites a newspaper article as a source, royal jelly doesn't trigger anything, it's the absence of regular nutrition, honey and pollen (which deactivate certain queen-genes through DNA_methylation), that makes a queen become a queen. I can't find the published article since it seems to have been only in print, but Australian scientists are supposed to have found that out. Any experts here who can comment? 91.16.57.119 ( talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a picture of royal jelly, illustrating the article, or of bee pollen (compare pictures here)? -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
"also including a relatively high amount (5%) of fatty acids." - relative to what? 67.246.176.132 ( talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A search of "royal jelly" on www.pubmed.gov now yields 371 research articles. Perhaps we should say just that in this article. I was looking to verify hearsay on estrogenic effects and Down's syndrome and found: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18830443 . However, in scrolling through all these titles, it's like "take your pick" for whatever malady you have and see if you can find an authoritative article. As a friend and an editor, I would send people on this pubmed search with the warning that finding just one published study does not mean much.
Suggested addition to the article: "A search of the PubMed database yields hundreds of research papers on the analysis and possible uses of Royal Jelly."
Comments? Bridgettttttte babble poop 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Sometimes honey or beeswax are added to the royal jelly, which is thought to aid its preservation."
This kind of sentence is ridiculous. It sounds like the typical myth of a remote mountain community where local wisdom prevails over scientific truth. If this is not verifiable, I would remove it.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If you allow a remark: I don't know which is the case but, if there exists some product that has "beeswax or honey added" for supposed preservative effect, then the above statement describes that practice correctly. Though it might be pointed out that the preservative effect is not proven and, therefore the addition in fact does not prolong the shelf life but instead results in pumping up the quantity of a product while lowering it's actual content of royal jelly. Which does not necessarily mean that the jelly buffed or diluted with addition of other (cheaper) ingredients is less effective since the effectiveness of royal jelly seems to be unproven in the first place, but nevertheless it can be regarded as a way of selling a mixture of cheaper substances under the name of a well sought after substance. (Which is a common practice in all kind of business.) (
80.98.114.70 (
talk)
12:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)).
In my opinion, the information on health effects is quite unsatisfactory and sounds biased. The article cites papers that raise doubts around the health benefits of the royal jelly, but does not at all mention scientific evidence supporting the benefits, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549483/ https://www.usab-tm.ro/utilizatori/ZOOTEHNIE/file/REVISTA%202011/vol%2044/2/BIOCHIM/Pavel.pdf
Am I missing something or such scientific reports are simply ignored?
Koroner ( talk) 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Worker bees and queens do not have an "identical clonal nature". Worker bees, like queens, grow from fertilised eggs; each worker is unique, a child of the queen and one of the dozen or more drones that she mated with. This is well described on the Queen bee wikipedia page.
Even drones are not clones. The queen is diploid (two different versions of each gene, one from each parent), the drone is haploid, with only one of each gene. Which copy of each gene a drone receives is essentially random. Drones laid by the same queen will not be identical, neither clones of the Queen nor of each other.
I'll be changing that text as soon as I can think of an appropriate wording. Itsbruce ( talk) 07:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
How much of different vitamins does royal jelly really have (in general)? Fao.org source used in the current article (archived here) claims that 1 g of fresh royal jelly has 159-265 mg of pantothenic acid (15900-26500 mg/100 g), for example, and cites a source from 1988. This amount is insane. Other sources like this one claim that it has about 52.8 mg of pantothenic acid per 100 g of jelly, but both sources used this publication use values that ultimately trace back to this publication from 1989. Also, the current version of this article claim that "Royal jelly is 67% water...". What percentages are these? Mass, volume, molarity or something else? 5-HT2AR ( talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 19 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mpankey.
— Assignment last updated by Mirandafast ( talk) 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)