sugar (1 Viewer)

[Surreybirder]

In Enjoying Moths Roy Leverton has a photo that he's taken of nearly 20 moths at 'sugar'. His recipe for 'sugar' is
454g of black treacle
1kg of muscavado
500 ml of Newcastle Brown (or another brown ale)--all boiled up together.

I'm so new to moths that I was thinking I might try this method so that I don't get too many unknown species at once. (And in any case building a trap is quite expensive.)

Please could someone (lots of people!) answer these questions (which seem a bit too elementary to put on UKmoths yahoogroup)?

a) Has anyone got experience of using sugar and what results did they get?
b) How early in the year is it worth starting?
c) Does it matter where you apply the sugar (e.g. is a garden shed OK?)
d) How long does it last (I don't want it attracting zillions of wasps over the following weeks)?
e) Some people recommend variations on the recipe, such as adding rum. Any experience?

 

[harry eales]

Sugaring

Hi Surreybirder,
I have used 'sugar' for many years with varying results. My own 'brew' is 1 tin of black treackle, 2lbs of dark brown 'Barbados' sugar. Empty into a pan and add 1/2 pint of water. Bring it to a very gentle boil for some 5 minutes. Stir it constantly to disolve the scum which forms, and then remove from the heat source and let cool. When lukewarm add 2 talblespoons of Dark Rum.
I used this mixture for 30 years sometimes with marvellous results but success is very weather dependant. The best results come on fairly calm nights with the wind from the west. Overcast skies help, moths will even come in rain. On bright moonlit nights I don't bother any more because of the lack of results.

I found sugaring a very messy occupation, no matter how hard you try you always seem to get sticky fingers. To get around this problem I now dilute the mixture and put it into a spray trigger action bottle. (A well cleaned out Windowlene spray bottle or similar spray will do). The mixture must be fairly thin to work through the spray nozzle but it still attracts large numbers of moths when the weather is suitable.

Even though I run Robinson Trap, it is still worth sugaring at the same time as long as it is carried out some distance away from the light zone.

I must admit I have not caught so many moths with sugar as I have with the light trap. The best months for sugaring seem to be June to September, at least up here in Northumberland and Durham. Give it a go, you never know till you try.

One tip I can recommend is to colour the glass lens of your torch red, by either using Indian Ink or a covering of red polythene. This cuts down on the sudden white glare when the torch is switched on and doesn't disturb the moths as much as a bright white light.
Have fun,
Harry Eales.

 

[Brian Stone]

I tried sugaring (actually wine roping) last year. Also new to mothing I didn't know what to expect and although I was a bit late starting (September) I did attract a few moths. I fully intend trying again during the coming year and will use the thicker sugar recipes on tree trunks around the garden as well as the wine ropes. Rum seems to figure in most recipes I have seen.

Despite what Paul Talbot says a search on UKmoths only results in little more than your thread. A lot of trial and error is probably in order but there are numerous recipes online to try. Just watch you don't spend more on rum than the cost of a light trap!

 

[CJW]

I've ceratinly found that the Autumn months are best for sugaring. The method attracts several species which don't ordinarily come to light (e.g. Old Lady).
As Harry says, the further away from the light trap the better and somewhere that you can get a bit of scent dispersal is best (somewhere where the wind can carry it from). If you can't get too far away from your trap, I suggest painting the side of posts and trees that are in the shadows.
As long as your shed hasn't been recently treated with creosote (or similar), there's no reason why you can't paint it.
Personally I just use a 1" paint brush to apply it as diluting the mixture will inevitably reduce it's effects and hey, what's a few sticky fingers compared to the pleasure of watching hords of moths feeding away on the solution?
Give it a go - it works.
Chris

 

[Surreybirder]

Thanks, Harry, Brian, Chris.
I'll give it a try when the worst of winter is over.
(I don't have a light trap, Chris. I intend to start slowly.)

 

[Surreybirder]

I found this interesting read on Google
http://jarofmoths.com/sugar.html

 

[Surreybirder]

I've tried sugaring a few times now, using brown ale in stead of rum but adding a little red wine too! So far I've only managed to attract satellites and one agonopterix sp.
This evening one of the moths seems to have had a dollop land on its wing. See below.

 

[Karl J]

Seems a darned fine way to get started at moths, may well give that a go when the weather warms up a bit.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[harry eales]

I found this interesting read on Google
http://jarofmoths.com/sugar.html

An interesting article, but I have to disagree on killing spms taken at sugar straight away. If they are needed as set spms for a collection it always pays to box the moths and take them home alive. They can be killed if necessary the following day when the sugar mixture has been digested. Killing them straight away often results in the sugar mixture taken up by the moth, seeping out after a few days on the setting board, and spoiling the specimen.

Harry Eales.

 

[CJW]

It's reprehensible that in this day and age we still have the antiquated thinking that leads to moths, butterflies and other colourful insects being killed for display purposes.
For crying out loud it's the 21st Century, take a bloody photograph!
Yes, there are occasions when a specimen has to be taken, but that should be purely for the advancement of knowledge (say identification issues and distribution) not for some sterile collection.
"Spoiling the specimen?" You've spoiled it by killing it. Neanderthal.
Chris

 

[cjay]

I agree that for display purposes it is very wrong however.
Some Moths have to be taken as voucher specimans in some cases to check genitalia. As long as only one or two of each species is killed I can see no problem.

Spider folks kill hundreds of spiders to check genitalia. As long as it is controlled I cannot see any problem with this at all.

CJ

 

[harry eales]

I fully agree CJW that that mass collection of insects of any Order is very 'infa dig' these days and I don't do it myself. However, there are occasions when it is necessary to take voucher specimens for identification.

It is not possible to identify many moth species from simply from a photograph.
Again, photographs do not always show the true colours of the insect being photographed and this can lead to miss-identification.

I have heard the 'for and against' arguments over collecting specimens for decades. There is no evidence whatsoever, to prove collecting in moderation is harmful to the great majority on insect species. Certainly it could be, to some very rare species that only exist in perhaps one or two localities. Even Butterfly Conservation agree that limited collecting does little or no harm.

It must also be remembered, that up until the 1960's when the first recording schemes were instituted, that literally all the known distribution data of insects came from collectors alone. Whilst it is reprehensible for collectors to amass large numbers of single species, a limited number of any but the scarcest of species doesn't do any great harm.

Changes in land management, farming practices and afforestation have caused far more damage to insect populations than anything else. The last colony of the original British Large Blue population became extinct because the management of the site was incorrectly done. In this particular case, the premier conservation organisation in this country suceeded in exterminating the very species they were trying to preserve.

It is quite possible that the Rothamstead Recording Scheme, which operates static light traps throughout Britain kills far more insects in total, than by all those people who still collect for the cabinet. Every insect that enter these traps is killed, and these traps operate every night of the year.

There will always be arguments for and against the killing of any life form, whether it be insects, foxes, feral mink or even farm animals and fish. Everyone has their viewpoint.

Over several years I have bred large numbers of the Large Heath Butterfly and have hybridised specimens from different sites in an effort to determine whether the differences in wing spot marking within a single county were due to genetic or phenetic reasons. This involved breeding large numbers of specimens from each site in order to obtain unmated males and females. only a dozen or two of those bred were needed for hybridisation. The surplus stock were released on the site from which the parents originated, almost certainly increasing the local population numbers. The hybrid forms were all killed and set. It may seem wrong to do this, but, I was not prepared to release these because they would have altered the gene pool on any site where they were released. Secondly, detailed examination had to be carried out on each individual specimen, this could not have been done on anything but a set specimen.

I trap several thousands of moths per year and catch many hundreds of specimens of other insect orders, whilst carrying out surveys for various organisations. Of these thousands of insects only perhaps a dozen or so are actually killed and preserved. It is quite probable that I kill far more simply driving to and from a site with my motor vehicle.

I am not a neanderthal, I am a scientist, and I cannot look at wildlife through rose tinted glasses all the time. Remember, it was only until quite recently that a bird could not be considered as a British species, unless it had actually been shot here, and the specimen preserved for other experts to check its identity.

Harry Eales.

 

[CJW]

I fully agree CJW that that mass collection of insects of any Order is very 'infa dig' these days and I don't do it myself. However, there are occasions when it is necessary to take voucher specimens for identification.

It is not possible to identify many moth species from simply from a photograph.
Again, photographs do not always show the true colours of the insect being photographed and this can lead to miss-identification.


It must also be remembered, that up until the 1960's when the first recording schemes were instituted, that literally all the known distribution data of insects came from collectors alone. Whilst it is reprehensible for collectors to amass large numbers of single species, a limited number of any but the scarcest of species doesn't do any great harm.

Changes in land management, farming practices and afforestation have caused far more damage to insect populations than anything else. The last colony of the original British Large Blue population became extinct because the management of the site was incorrectly done. In this particular case, the premier conservation organisation in this country suceeded in exterminating the very species they were trying to preserve.

It is quite possible that the Rothamstead Recording Scheme, which operates static light traps throughout Britain kills far more insects in total, than by all those people who still collect for the cabinet. Every insect that enter these traps is killed, and these traps operate every night of the year.

There will always be arguments for and against the killing of any life form, whether it be insects, foxes, feral mink or even farm animals and fish. Everyone has their viewpoint.

Over several years I have bred large numbers of the Large Heath Butterfly and have hybridised specimens from different sites in an effort to determine whether the differences in wing spot marking within a single county were due to genetic or phenetic reasons. This involved breeding large numbers of specimens from each site in order to obtain unmated males and females. only a dozen or two of those bred were needed for hybridisation. The surplus stock were released on the site from which the parents originated, almost certainly increasing the local population numbers. The hybrid forms were all killed and set. It may seem wrong to do this, but, I was not prepared to release these because they would have altered the gene pool on any site where they were released. Secondly, detailed examination had to be carried out on each individual specimen, this could not have been done on anything but a set specimen.

I am not a neanderthal, I am a scientist, and I cannot look at wildlife through rose tinted glasses all the time. Remember, it was only until quite recently that a bird could not be considered as a British species, unless it had actually been shot here, and the specimen preserved for other experts to check its identity.

Harry Eales.

My point exactly Harry, the Neanderthal comment was aimed at anyone who collects for display purposes.
In this, supposedly enlightened, day and age it is wrong to kill any moth/butterfly purely for pleasure.
I have no problem with scientific work (although there are those who cross breed and breed/release without control).
As for there being a problem with photographs incorrectly reproducing an insect's colours, well that's just a cop out. You can't name me one species where accurate colour reproduction is critical to it's identification. The distribution of the various stigmata etc. is far more important. Our county recorder is colour blind and is one of the most talented people I have ever come across.
Once again land management rears it's ugly head as a defence. There is very little the average moth-er/birder can do to improve this situation (save the usually lobbying), but what we can do is not to have an impact (however small) on species by the taking of specimens for pleasure.
And then you quote the old argument of "it wasn't so long ago..." and completely miss the point that it WAS IN THE PAST. Birders have progressed, why can't lepidopterists?

Chris

 

[Surreybirder]

I'd just like to point out that I don't endorse killing insects (except perhaps for scientific research in a controlled way). The article I quoted was 100 years old. I did find it interesting but that doesn't mean that I endorse the methods described.
Ken

 

[CJW]

No problem Ken, I didn't think for one minute that you would endorse such behaviour. But be aware, there are still plenty that do.

Chris

 

[harry eales]

Thanks for the quick reply Chris. There are instances when the individual can make a difference though in conservation. My work at the Army Ranges at Otterburn in Northumberland managed to get no less than 6 SSSI's created within one year, and no less than £50.000 spent by the MoD on Mire restoration.
It was simply a case of getting in contact with the right people and putting forward a good case backed by substancial evidence. To be fair, the MoD are very conservation conscious and perhaps being a member of their Conservation Committee did help. Please don't give up trying to change peoples minds if harm is being done to habitat where scarce or rare species occur.

When I started 'entomologising' nearly 50 years ago, just about every lepidopterist I knew locally, was a 'collector'. Nowadays I don't know anyone who collects simply to amass a collection. Certainly a few take the odd specimen for identification but that's all. The recorder has replaced the collector, a good thing too in my view.

Scanning through the lists of entomological supplies and suppliers show very few these days actually supplying pins, setting boards and other preserving equipment. Many have gone out of business simply through the lack of demand. Surely thats some evidence that the days of the mass collector is about over.
So in many ways the lepidopterist has advanced along with the birders.

There will still be a small number of collectors two about, in the same way as there are collectors of birds eggs, but they are very much in a minority. Prosecution of offenders also helps, and I know that many entomological shows are visited by the authorities checking on who is selling what. A good thing in my humble opinion.

I can't fully agree with you about photography though, not every picture is perfect and many will fail to show the diagnostic features that are absolutely necessary for positive identification. This error may not be detected until you are home and have downloaded or developed the pictures. A specimen in the hand is worth a hundred pictures if you cannot identify the insect in the field. (Excuse the paraphrase).

The variation in colours encountered in photographed specimens may not foil the expert in determining its true identity, but will confuse the neophyte and lead to erronious id's. Photographs will never be able to separate successfully specimens of the Grey and Dark Daggers or separate the Copper Underwing from Svenson's Copper underwing, and many other species where the underwings have got diagnostic features that can't be seen by the camera. This site can help in some instances with identifications, but, not everyone knows about it.

Harry Eales.

 

[CJW]

So to summarise, we pretty much agree on everything!
Oh apart from the separation in the field of Svensson's upper Underwing!

 

[harry eales]

Just about Chris, at least we are on the same side.

Harry Eales.

 

[Surreybirder]

I've noticed that moths occasionally go for sugar even a few days after I've put it up. (I use a shed side which has an overhanging roof, so it escapes all but the most wind-driven rain.)
Recently I had a micro (Agonopterix - probably heracliana or ciliella) and tonight I had a plume moth (although it wasn't exactly on the sugar). I suspect that it will be another of the micros that need to be dissected to get a positive ID but I haven't 'collected' it.

 

[scampo]

We're just starting really but I found a lot of useful info on sugaring, etc. on the National Moth Night website:

http://www.nationalmothnight.info/attracting.html