>If you want to think beekeeping has never been in a better place go ahead.
There you go trying to put words into my mouth again, Bob!
I posted those figures solely as information for the Informed Discussion
Group. I thought that the List might want to see some data on winter
losses of well-managed colonies, since the USDA survey is based upon
voluntary, self-reported figures, not upon data from carefully-observed,
marked groups of colonies. I was not bragging or suggesting any sort of
management--I was simply reporting upon actual data from 400
commercially-managed hives that were graded for strength at three time
points, and an additional 200 hives of my own similarly graded, and then
another 150 colonies carefully tracked the next winter for strength. We
scientists call these sorts of figures "reliable data."
The government survey, on the other hand, does not confirm the sort of
management practices used by the beekeepers, nor even that the colonies
were actually alive in fall.
Note also that I emphasized that my colonies were in nonagricultural
areas--it was ludicrous for you to suggest that I was recommending that
others move their hives to corn deserts!
As for Stan's request to share the data, I have already presented it at the
ABF national convention and elsewhere, and am in the process of writing it
up for publication soon.
I have been lucky enough these past few years to be in a position to run or
participate in large-scale controlled trials from which we are learning a
great deal about colony survival, morbidity, and mortality. We just
completed one involving three beekeepers (Florida, Texas, and Calif) in
which we accurately graded colonies for strength monthly over the course of
the winter, as well as taking samples from every hive to measure mites,
viruses, and nosema (270 colonies involved). From this data set we stand
to learn a great deal about what actually causes colony winter losses.
In another trial that I am running, I'm taking monthly nosema spore counts
and prevalence monthly--I've been working up the data for the past 6 months.
The picture of the causes of colony mortality are becoming clear to those
of us who are making the effort to study it closely, rather than blaming
every damn thing that comes to mind.
The data that I've collected explain much of colony mortality for "control"
colonies not subjected to residues of synthetic miticides and
agrochemicals, and give a baseline to which we can compare the mortality of
colonies exposed to such chemicals.
I have clearly seen that massive colony mortality or morbidity
(respectively) can result from the inoculation of healthy hives with either
a virus strain isolated from a collapsing operation, or by inoculating
colonies with "bee juice." No chemical exposure was required. We are
currently documenting the effect of various mite levels.
On the other hand, it has long been clear that exposure to certain
pesticides, including miticides, can cause poor winter survival.
Unfortunately, few researchers are going to the trouble of determining
exactly which ones are causing problems--the Fraziers are the notable
exception, and I strongly support their research. Dr Marla Spivak's work
in the CAP program is also attempting to determine the effect of ag
exposure and ag chemicals.
A huge question is the degree to which miticide residues and ag chemicals
may synergize to cause colony morbidity.
Now I understand that some on this List have already cemented their minds
around what they think is causing elevated colony mortality. However,
there are those of us who want to determine the truth of the matter by
actual data collection and field experimentation. It is for those that I
post to the List--not to get into idiotic debate with those with fixed
minds.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
