On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:49 -0400, Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The latest from Dennis van Engelsdorp, et al

Peter

Is this the same as noted last week?
(as suggested by Juanse Barros?)

If so then my comment stands
Let me quote the whole paragraph

CCD-affected apiaries contained 3.5 times the number of dead colonies compared to 
control apiaries. Similarly, CCD apiaries contained 3.6 times more weak colonies compared 
to control apiaries (Table 4). In CCD apiaries, neighbouring colonies that were both of 
adequate strength (&#8216;acceptable&#8217;) were 2.3 times less frequent than would have been 
expected, while neighboring colonies that were both &#8216;weak&#8217; or both &#8216;dead&#8217; were 
approximately 1.3 times more frequent than expected (Table 5). The opposite was true in 
control apiaries, where adequately strong colonies were 2.6 times more likely to neighbor 
other colonies of adequate strength. Moreover, the odds ratio demonstrated that in CCD 
apiaries there was an increased risk of colonies being weak or dead when they neighbored 
other weak or dead colonies (Table 5). This suggests that CCD is either a contagious 
condition or results from exposure to a common risk factor.

I have other reasons for thinking ccd is a virus,
but NOT one tested for ( the 62th factor, virus X)

dave

             ***********************************************
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