CCD/CDS.   Peter, good points.   I don't care what you call it, it still occurs, despite denials.  Not as widespread, but it cycles every 3-5 years in operations with the problem.  You'll also find that way back I followed CCD hives through the course of 2 years.  The signs change with season - the classical signs were the winter phase.  The initial and final stages in summer are different than the winter ones first observed in 2006.  So I'd argue that CDS and CCD, in at least some cases, are different stages of the same thing.


Even in the worst cases, in any given yard, in the initial collapse, one could see the range of signs.  The Classic was the most severe.  What was most common was strong hives rapidly failing, with the population either disappearing in a few days or a week or two, to the re-enactment I saw in my observation hive, where the bee counters showed that the abandonment of the hive by foragers came in successive waves, not in one event.



I really don't care what you call it, but it's been named out of existence.  That's then used to assure everyone, CCD is gone. Bull Poop.  My own bias, it's pathogenic, it cycles, and it may either change in virulence from year to year like human flu, and it seems to have periods of covert infection.


For those people who say our 2010 paper was in error because Army used the wrong database - that is completely wrong.   Due to the loudly proclaimed claims that Army used the wrong database, the whole study was independently reviewed by Army and by UM.  Every single sample and data point was audited.  And there were no errors found.  It took six months.


For the analysis of those initial CCD bee samples, the U.S. Army used their own unique data analysis program, ten years of development, to screen simultaneously every available microbial database in existence - we simply  reported in our paper the results for bee-related peptides and proteins.  We found and stated in our paper that we found over 900 microbes in the samples, many that had nothing to do with bees per se.


Some of the detected microbes occur in other invertebrates; there were  proteins and peptide residues from even things that affect mice and deer, and even plant microbes.  I presented lots of this data at regional and national meetings.  What really shook up my University, we found strange microbes in bees from one of my observation hives, the one in the window of my office in the UM Health Sciences lab building.  Human STDs, for example, sheep viruses (there a lab in the basement with sheep), deer viruses (deer graze the shrubs outside the HS building).  Turns out, the microbiology labs vent through roof-top hoods.  At that time there were no microbial filters on the hood vents.




Back to the claim that others didn't or coudn't find the suite of microbes we found - they got three samples that they wrote about - from someone else - who got them from Army.  Those authors never talked to the Army or to me about the samples they 'inherited'.  What they did not know was that the Army deliberately set up a blind test - one sample had no Nosema or IIV virus, one had low levels of both, and one had high levels of both.  And the Nosema was verified by microscopy.   These down-the-sample-line authors found no difference at all, no signs of either the IIV virus or Nosema!   They proclaimed victory!  Army was wrong!!  Army just kept doing what the Army does, in this case working with software companies interested in licensing the Army's unique microbial detection software.


Two years later, Army licensed their unique microbial analysis software to one of the largest GS/MS software company around.  Army and the company held a big signing event and press release.


Now for the rest of the story, the authors of at least some of the articles, claiming Army either used the wrong database or was too stupid to recognize proteins and peptides unique to bees, failed to disclose that they themselves had competing software that they were trying to sell, one even took their paper  to the same software company with which the US Army was negotiating.




What they didn't know, Army and the Analytical Software company had conducted, blind, round robin trials, using Army's software and the software of competing companies and groups.  The data set from spiked standards were analyzed by the software of every provider - Army and the others.   Army got everything correct down to virus strain (again, the trial was blind to Army).  The competing software couldn't go to strain in terms of virus ID, missed some (I think it was 2), and got one completely wrong.


We wrote all of this up, but then found that PLOS wanted another big chuck of cash to publish the rebuttal. By that time, Army had licensed their software, Charles Wick retired, and wrote two books about Army microbial detection instruments and software.


I was disgusted with the whole thing and went back to working on other issues - I'm more interested now in wellness for bees then tilting windmills.


However, I will stick to my bias:


Denial means no one is seriously looking.



J.J. Bromenshenk
Bee Alert
Missoula, Mt



-----



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