I'll pass on the insulting troll...

>If you listen to those who are working on the problem, like Dave Tarpy,
> you find that there is no apparent problem post mating, there is simply a
> problem that crops up weeks later, where sperm is no longer viable.


Some of us do more than listen, and spend time in discussion with those
studying the problem, which is (1) queen failure for apparently various
reasons (miticide effects being high on the list), (2) infertility after a
period (again miticide residues and shipping temperature stress), and (3)
colonies now failing to successfully supersede.  The interesting thing is
that the queen producers who I know run their own queens in their tens of
thousands of hives, yet generally don't experience such problems.
But one tells me that he sees it when he requeens certain colonies--that
the bees either reject the queen after a time (perhaps pheromones or
disease???).

This symptom, described well before any specific mechanism was suspected,
> echoes exactly what the study at hand found.
>

>Perhaps one should reread the paper.  There was no significant difference
in sperm viability.

>
> > In this study, ~50% of the neonic queens successfully mated out,
> compared  to ~79% of the controls.
> > These percentages are within normal variation,
> Nope, see the description of Figure 2:
>

In a one-replicate trial with a small n, and based upon "normal" queen
mating success frequencies, I stand by my assessment.  A p of 0.05 means
that such a result would be expected 1 time in 20.  This trial could well
have been one of those times.

>
> >What if it is not a "cell-builder issue" at all, despite the specific
> study methodology, and the queens are simply getting a big dose from the
> ubiquitous foundation and wax residues of this and that and the other?
>

Would be plausible if neonics were lipophilic and dissolved into and out of
the wax.  But they don't to any extent.


> >Remember, the queens are fine both pre-mating and immediately
> post-mating.  It is only after some time that one sees the sudden failure
> of an otherwise acceptably-laying queen.
> I'm encouraged - this is the first we've heard of anyone being able to
> merely replicate the mysterious symptoms found by so many.


This study did not replicate it at all.  There was no mention of queens
going bad.  Simply that they never mated out and started laying
successfully. I thought that you suggested that we all read the paper prior
to discussion.

-- 
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