>Each researcher running studies is trying to come up with a "one

> size fits all situations" hypothesis.
>

Bob, may I suggest that you refrain from telling us what researchers are
thinking.  The majority of nosema researchers (I have spoken with nearly
every single one at length) are simply trying to find answers, NOT trying to
support any particular hypothesis.

>
>
> >Researchers used to publish conclusions about hives with only 4-6 used in
> the study


You are correct on this.  Several of us are pushing researchers to use more
colonies, as Jerry and I have previously posted.


> >and even today from maybe a half dozen caged bees.
>

I think that you mean a half dozen cages, with 30 bees per cage.

>
> > I am not dissing researchers


Of course you are, and do continuously!

>I am not sure what the goal of Mr. Williams is


I don't know if you have spoken to him, but as far as my conversations with
him, I got the impression that he is simply reporting actual field data.

>Higes ( Spain) has the field studies to back his data.

Other researchers in Spain also have extensive field data that is completely
contrary to Higes' data, as far as colony production and survival when
infected with N ceranae is concerned.

>
>
> >Mr. Williams is entitled to his opinion but high nosema ceranae spore
> loads
> go hand in hand with most cases of high commercial hive loss.


Bob, I think the point that is being missed is that no one is questioning
the problem with high spore loads--say over 10M average for foragers.  Most
field data indicate that N ceranae in most areas simply does not reach that
level often.

However, I am well aware that some North American commercial beeks
experience sky-high spore levels, and I don't doubt for a second that that
level of infection is harmful to the bees.  The question to me (and I have
asked this question on List several times) has always been why N ceranae
only spikes in certain operations.

 > " Both nosema ceranae & KBV were found in 100% of the samples from the
> CCD
> dead hives sampled"
>

N ceranae was also found in 81% of "healthy" colonies, and KBV in 76%.
Note also that Dave Hackenberg's bees were infected with N ceranae since at
least 1985, yet he didn't see any problems until 2004 at the earliest.

  >as beekeepers trying to keep nosema ceranae controlled is our only
> course of action ( other than nutrition etc.).
>

Nutrition and breeding for resistance are likely the most important
long-term solutions.

>
>
> >So slow in some cases ( reason unknown) the hives collapse
> before returned to a normal hive.
>

Slow because it takes time for the antibiotic to have any effect upon the
transmission of the parasite to the next generation of bees.  In fact, in
one controlled trial of mine, even 4 weekly drenches with fumagillin at the
dilution rate of 1 454g bottle per 20 gallons of syrup did not stop spore
increase in 3 out of 4 colonies over 6 weeks.

Bob, there is no need to polarize this discussion, nor that on the neonics.
No one on this List has ever stated that either N ceranae nor the neonics
are harmless.  What is of question is the degree of harm.  This can best be
determined by actual field observations and data, as opposed to opinions.

I agree with Peter Borst, in that those commenting on scientific papers
would do well to read the entire paper, rather than commenting on snips.

Randy Oliver

>

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L