Talk:Royal jelly

message: 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
ChiraagChiraag boodhoo 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whaddaya mean 'pure acetylcholine'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Baldercrap! The royal jelly was used to get fry back from the dead by having the royal jelly fall on the couch that had fry's fluids in. (baldercrap is a quote from the show, not meant as an offence)Jackpot Den 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, in the episode Leela packs the Royal Jelly as a "snack" for the queen bee they are trying to take back.  The jelly is then mentioned again later when Leela accidently knocks some of it on to the couch which brings Fry back.  Additionaly, the wikipedia article on the episode links to this article.  I see no reason not to add this to the Science Fiction part in the references.  Tuffsnake June 14, 2007
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)
thread_title:  Futurama reference 

message: "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? Loserdog3000 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consult your Doctor! 

message: 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)
replies: text: It has a vaguely acidic, strong flavour, behind which it reminds that of beeswax (possibly because it contains stearic acid). Most people consider royal jelly rather disgusting enough that they only accept ingesting it in some way that minimizes perception of the substance's flavour, generally by placing a small amount of RJ below their tongue and letting it be slowly dissolved by saliva. I personally don't think it tastes that bad, instead finding its flavour somewhat interesting to try, but mine's probably a rather rare exception. This is obviously all from personal experience: if you don't belive me, try it for yourself, but beware some people consider RJ's taste to be absolutely shocking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.205.213 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan and Royal Jelly 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this might be what you're thinking of: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/royal-jelly-isnt-makes-queen-bee-queen-bee/ and the paper is http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/7/e1500795 . If I get a chance I'll try and write this up in the article! Abergabe (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "triggers the development of queen morphology" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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?  Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a better application of WP:MEDRS would be in order: emphasize any reviews, de-emphasize individual studies. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With Ronz on this. As of 11/2017, 696 citations yield from a PubMed search on royal jelly. Quantity is meaningless. To the point, are there clinical (human) trials, and have the results been summarized and evaluated in reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Those and only those are valid citations. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  371 Research Articles 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unverified claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: Missing WP:MEDRS maybe? --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Benefits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Honey Bees are not clones 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vitamin content

message: — Assignment last updated by Mirandafast (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology