Instant nectar mix ? (1 Viewer)

The concern with 3:1 is possible impact on the kidneys of the bird. To my knowledge it has not been tested. I run 3:1 only during migration and in extreme weather. At all other times I drop down to as low a 6:1 with no impact on my hummingbird numbers.
The plants showing the 3:1 ratios are not common in natural situations.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

Most books i've read, and most people i've talked to generally keep it at 5:1 or 6:1 like Mark just said. I'd definitely not leave it at 3:1...that is too highly concentrated in my opinion, though i'm not an expert...just someone who thoroughly loves hummingbirds

i usually feed at a 4 :1.5 ratio but i will say in my area when there is a high consentration of insects they prefer the bugs over the fake nectar

crickieheather said:

and they tastyness of the sugarwater may keep them from going in search of it.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence or can you cite an authoritative source for this?

Curtis Croulet said:

Do you have any evidence or can you cite an authoritative source for this?

Click to expand...

That would indeed be interesting to see Curtis.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

Curtis Croulet said:

Do you have any evidence or can you cite an authoritative source for this?

Click to expand...

Hee. That's why I underlined MAY! No authority but my own guesses. 4:1 feeders are more well visited than 7:1 flowers, and high sugar ratio feeders means that the hummingbirds need to feed less often. As to that bit of info, it comes from this paper: http://www.nabt.org/sub/htdi/v62n04p292.asp

To quote it:
"Based on measurements and analysis of the bird's excreted fluids, Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) concluded that hummingbirds digest all sugar from sugar-water meals. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how often hummingbirds eat and the amount of food they consume daily. This is dependent upon the energy content of the food. As Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) stated, since hummingbirds feed on an assortment of flower nectars (including Fuchsia and Hibiscus, two of which we sampled in our field studies) with caloric values that range from 10 to 82 calories per meal (295 µL), the number of meals is directly related to the caloric-energy provided by the flower nectar.

Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) found that when a rich sugar solution (approximately 82 calories per meal) was used, a three-gram, male, ruby-throated hummingbird ate five meals in an hour--equivalent to a little less than 295 µL. However, when the sugar solution was diluted by one-half, the bird continued to eat the same volume for each meal. Now, however, the bird ate 14 meals in an hour. With the diluted solution and lower energy content, the crop released nectar more rapidly. Even more surprising, since each meal weighed about one-quarter gram, over the course of an hour the three-gram bird consumed 3.6 grams of food. In other words, the bird consumed 0.6 grams, or almost 20%, more in an hour than his body weight. This means that over the 12-hour daylight feeding period, this particular bird (which was assumed to be representative of the rest of the hummingbird population), ate 43 grams of sugar water, or a little more than 14 times his body weight (Hainsworth & Wolf 1993 ). This hummingbird example illustrates the nutritional importance of nectar to its pollinators."

Hainsworth, R., and L. Wolf. (1993). Hummingbird feeding: Hummingbird foods and feeding and questions using the 4:1 sugar-water ratio in feeders. WildBird, May 1993.

To quote it:
"Based on measurements and analysis of the bird's excreted fluids, Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) concluded that hummingbirds digest all sugar from sugar-water meals. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how often hummingbirds eat and the amount of food they consume daily. This is dependent upon the energy content of the food. As Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) stated, since hummingbirds feed on an assortment of flower nectars (including Fuchsia and Hibiscus, two of which we sampled in our field studies) with caloric values that range from 10 to 82 calories per meal (295 µL), the number of meals is directly related to the caloric-energy provided by the flower nectar.

Hainsworth and Wolf (1993) found that when a rich sugar solution (approximately 82 calories per meal) was used, a three-gram, male, ruby-throated hummingbird ate five meals in an hour--equivalent to a little less than 295 µL. However, when the sugar solution was diluted by one-half, the bird continued to eat the same volume for each meal. Now, however, the bird ate 14 meals in an hour. With the diluted solution and lower energy content, the crop released nectar more rapidly. Even more surprising, since each meal weighed about one-quarter gram, over the course of an hour the three-gram bird consumed 3.6 grams of food. In other words, the bird consumed 0.6 grams, or almost 20%, more in an hour than his body weight. This means that over the 12-hour daylight feeding period, this particular bird (which was assumed to be representative of the rest of the hummingbird population), ate 43 grams of sugar water, or a little more than 14 times his body weight (Hainsworth & Wolf 1993 ). This hummingbird example illustrates the nutritional importance of nectar to its pollinators."

Hainsworth, R., and L. Wolf. (1993). Hummingbird feeding: Hummingbird foods and feeding and questions using the 4:1 sugar-water ratio in feeders. WildBird, May 1993.[/QUOTE]

While this makes sense, there are several questions that arise in my mind not seeing the technique used to analyse the fecal matter. There are several problems inherent in the analysis of this material that could affect the outcome.

The birds apparently eat the sugar meal when they need the energy, unlike humans who eat sugar because it tastes good!

Mark
Bastrop, TX

I'm chiming in a tad late on this thread, but some issues have been raised that I believe would benefit from additional information.

First, streatham referenced an old Bird Watcher's Digest article in which the late Rik Blom stated that a San Diego Zoo study of red dye is a myth - which is true - and that "[t]here is not a single piece of proof that the dye causes problems" - which is debatable. Since this article was published, several scientific studies have come to light that cast significant doubt on the safety of Red #40, the dye used in most hummingbird feeders solutions. Lanny Chambers has summarized the evidence, with links to the papers in question, on his red dye page:

http://www.hummingbirds.net/dye.html

Second, it's certainly true that the 4:1 (by volume) recipe is almost universally recomended, but no one seems to be sure why since nectar research, including the recent studies Mark alluded to, reveals that this sugar concentration (around 18% by weight) is on the low side of the bell curve for the nectar of hummingbird-pollinated flowers. Some of the research is summarized in an article by Dennis Demcheck in the Lousiana Ornithological Society News:

http://losbird.org/news/0326_201_news.pdf
(scroll down to page 7)

Among the garden plants that Demcheck sampled, different species had different average concentrations (16.9% to 33.2%), and concentrations varied significantly even between flowers on the same plant. Most importantly for this discussion, sugar concentrations in many of the birds' favorite flowers were in the 25-35% range. Various more formal studies have found average sugar concentrations in the nectars of hummingbird-pollinated flowers in the neighborhood of 23 to 28%. At approximately 22.5% sugar by weight, a 3:1 solution is closer to the mean sugar concentration found in natural nectars and to the concentrations the birds prefer than 4:1, a recommendation that may have been based on a more limited nectar sample.

Third, I don't know of any evidence that suggests that stronger sugar concentrations in nectar discourage hummingbirds from hunting. There's some controversy over the relative importance of nectar and invertebrates in the birds' diets and conflicting evidence on how well various species can survive on just one or the other, but it's clear that they need and crave both. We use 3:1 routinely in our feeders and still observe hummers flycatching and see critters in their crops when we band them.

Chris, as long as the birds have a choice among feeders, flowers, and fresh water, you're not putting their health in jeopary by offering them a 3:1 solution, but keep in mind that it's both wasteful and environmentally shortsighted to offer a stronger sugar solution than absolutely necessary to keep your clientele loyal (and lure them away from the neighbor who still uses the red junk).
__________________
Sheri Williamson
http://tzunun/home.mindspring.com

Well said Sheri. Unfortunately, I did not have access to Dennis or Lanny's materials while I was writing that last reply.

Mark
Bastrop, TX

I was going to say its probably the sugar concentration. So where do we stand on the whole store bought nectar solution. I remember that when i posted about this last winter that people were saying that it was bad, and that straight sugar and water would work..but i like the idea of giving extra nutrition with the storebought stuff. Any links or experts on this stuff? Whats up?

...i like the idea of giving extra nutrition...

Click to expand...

The manufacturers and sellers of commercial "instant nectars" want you to think that their products are better than homemade sugar water, but read the labels - most are >99% sugar (sucrose, a.k.a. ordinary white table sugar, often combined with smaller amounts of dextrose and/or fructose). This wouldn't be so bad, but they usually contain additives of questionable safety (Red #40, which in high doses has been linked to pre-cancerous DNA damage in lab animals) and practicality (artificial flavors that have no demonstrated attractive value except to gullible human buyers). Even those companies that add token vitamins, minerals, etc. hope you won't question the logic behind providing nutritional supplements in liquid form to wild, free-living hummingbirds who get their "hard" nutrition from eating invertebrates and drink natural nectar and feeder solutions just for the energy.

The nectar of hummingbird flowers is basically a sugar-water solution with some electrolytes and traces of other compounds that seem to be "contaminants" that the plants didn't bother to filter out. This summary paper spends most of its time covering the issues of sugar type and concentration but touches on other nectar components:

http://www.up.ac.za/academic/zoology/2003/pdf/ornithophily review.pdf

Bottom line: Homemade sugar water is cheap, easy, and amazingly close in chemical composition to the nectar of hummingbird flowers. For additional references pertaining to the mounting evidence against Red #40, read the page linked above in #29.

wayyyyyyyyyy to much math, personally i still believe location and colors and flowers brings them in, hoping so anyhow

Ok so, I thought hummers got alot of nutrition from the nectar. So this is not the case. I mean I always knew they ate insects and whatnot, but i thought the nectar was their majority of intake. So if this is correct then yea, sugar water is just as good.
We learn something new everyday...usually.

...i thought the nectar was their majority of intake.

Click to expand...

This is correct on a by-weight basis, but it has less to do with the overall nutritional value of nectar than with their extremely high energy requirements and the fact that nectar, whether natural or artificial, is composed mainly of water.

Sheri, I wouldn't presume to tell you what you to use in your own feeders, but I do think the hummer-expert community should be consistent about recommending 4:1. Any discension on this will prompt some people to conclude that "even the experts can't decide" and take it as license to try anything they like -- hence the experiments with brandy, vanilla, brown sugar and Aspertame that we've seen in other forums.

As you can see from messages 15 and 22 in this thread, there's still a lot of variation in what people believe is the recommended ratio despite at least a couple of decades of relative consistency in recommending 4:1. Revising recommendations to reflect the current state of knowledge is the scientific thing to do, and it's scientists in the hummingbird community who have changed their recommendations to reflect data on sugar concentrations in the nectar of hummingbird flowers. Even Wolf and Hainsworth's scheme - of which I don't approve for reasons they failed to consider - is based on scientific data on nectar composition and hummingbird energetics.

I believe that the one thing on which we absolutely must be consistent is the basic formula: Plain white sugar + good clean drinking water. Period. NO honey, "raw" sugar, artificial sweeteners, distilled/purified water, dye, protein supplements, Kool-Aid, Gatorade, Jello, etc. It's been my observation that people who use stronger-than-recommended solutions often do so out of a lack of information, while those who experiment with weird additives tend to be motivated by perverse curiosity, the "If it ain't broke, why not try to fix it anyway?" school of tinkering. Even having the entire hummingbird community in lockstep on these issues isn't going to completely prevent this sort of meddling, but we should do our best to make sure that the vast majority of hummingbird enthusiasts recognize it as silly at best and dangerous at worst.

First of all, you can purchase the premade stuff without dye, so that is a big option. Secondly, put out flowers that attract them and provide natural food. Salvia, fuschia, bee balm, butterfly bush, etc. They love things like day lilies, hollyhocks, anything with a trumpet shape, tuberlar shape. Use lots of reds, oranges and then bring in the pinks, blues and yellows. Cluster them, make the garden full of bloom. And get that feeder out into the open, where they can see it. Also change the water more frequently. I change mine every other day, and every day in the hot weather. I have found that makes a huge difference. And be sure to clean them correctly. :bounce:

Sheri, I was impressed last year when you mixed new nectar for a feeder at my cabin by just dumping in an amount of sugar and water that "looked" right. The birds seemed to like the new stuff as well as the old. I'd agree that there's an unnecessarily anal-retentive aspect of the exact 4:1 recommendation and that worries about the effects of 3:1 are unwarranted. I'd be curious about the source for some of the weak concentrations recommended in this thread. At the strong end, I've occasionally seen the attitude in other forums of, "If x amount is good, then a whole lot more should be better," leading to people bragging about using 1:1 (invoking "concentraton envy").

Curtis: In fairness to the flowers, a few species offer nectar that's the equivalent of 1:1. I don't approve of these syrupy solutions for a number of reasons, but as long as the birds have choices (flower nectar, neighbors' feeders with lower sugar concentrations, and clean water), I trust them to meet their own water needs.

Lady19thC: Your points about flowers and feeder hygiene are well taken. As for colorless commercial "instant nectar," I don't consider that a "big option" unless you mean a big optional dent in my bank balance. Out here in Arizona some feeding stations go through hundreds of pounds of sugar a year. Using these products - which sell for the equivalent of $4 to $6 a pound, between 6 and 17 times the cost of ordinary white sugar - would put us in the poorhouse! These products are >99% sugar, and there's nothing in that remaining <1% that justifies the astronomical cost. Try as I might, I can't think of a single good reason to use commercial "instant nectar" products of any kind.