Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:48:41 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Jim said: This is a complex point, but the
> process used may have detected genetic evidence of PRIOR
> IAPV exposure, rather than the evidence of an actual virus.
I asked Dr Cox Foster about this point, and it appears from her detailed
answer that they addressed this issue by looking for entire copies of the
virus, rather than a few fragments. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt
on this one.
The case that IAPV was present, and likely strongly associated with CCD is
strong, as are KBV, and the nosemas.
IMHO, far more sampling needs to be done to see just how long the virus has
been in the US, how widespread it is, whether it was spread much through the
use of priming queen cells with royal jelly, or by Aussie imports, or
indirectly from Canada.
We also need to explain why Canadian bees with varroa aren't crashing.
I'm not about to write off the importance of this paper, although there are
the questions of methodology that Jim points out that need to be confirmed.
I don't like how it was released, nor the politics involved.
I look at it as a good starting point, and now we need to surge ahead with
more sampling.
Randy Oliver
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
|
|