Bob, I can see that you are in full rant mode  : )

You didn't answer Pete's question re your statement::

> Bob writes:
>
>> its OK it seems for researchers to blame all commercial beekeepers
>> problems on commercial beekeepers as few answer back
>>
>
Bob, no researcher that I know of has blamed CCD problems on commercial
beeks.

>
>  >Penn State ( and the CCD team) in their writings as do many other
> researchers point to illegal use of miticides as the source of our
> problems.  Strictly hypothesis which can not be proven!
>

Bob, in the universe of beekeeping reality, the vast majority of commercial
beeks used ag formulations of fluvalinate and amitraz, and a number used off
label coumaphos.  Those beekeepers indeed had the most highly contaminated
combs.

However, such comb contamination shows up by causing brood mortality.  In
"classic" CCD there is no noticeable spotty brood, but rather nice frames of
brood, but the adult bees gone.

Contaminated combs likely affect the bee immune system, and cause all sorts
of problems, but do not fit the symptoms of CCD.

But now you have me totally confused.
You have oft stated that on this list, and in ABJ, that CCD doesn't exist.
There are many beekeepers and researchers who would strongly disagree!
Especially those now putting in claims for reimbursement by the taxpayers
for their losses.

So Bob, how about setting us all straight--in your mind, does CCD exist or
not?


> > A yet to be found pathogen is responsible for "disappearing disease"
> (CCD)
> hypothesis after three years and a higher amount of money spent than on any
> other beekeeping issue in history yet no new pathogen.
>

Bob, money was spent researching all possibilities.  It was totally
appropriate for researchers to look for a novel pathogen for what appeared
to be a novel disease.  You are being silly.

There have indeed been novel pathogens discovered--like *Nosema ceranae*,
IAPV, and some yet unpublished.  You may have heard of N ceranae.  It
appears to be causing many beekeepers substantial problems.


> >Our brood comb was in effect ruined ( frigging ruined!!!!!!) due to the
> LEGAL l use of these two products (personal experience) .
>

Bob, you posted not long ago that beekeepers with those very contaminated
combs had the best  bees in years!  Strong, thriving colonies!  How many
sides of your mouth can you talk out of?  You are confusing us all with your
switching back and forth!

>
> >I realize getting Bayer to step forward and accept responsibility is a bit
> much to ask.


Especially since Bayer does not manufacture Apistan.  Bob, no one forced
beekeepers to ignore the clearly-published evidence that those products
contaminate combs.  There was a long history prior from Europe, which the
Europeans made effort to warn us about.

Some of us heeded those warnings long ago--I personally used my last
synthetic miticide some nine years ago.  Bob, I know that you wisely
promoted less use of those miticides years ago.  So why the sudden claim of
ignorance?

>
> >The research Randy points to from Penn State about coumaphos being a good
> thing


Bob, I never said that anyone stated that coumaphos was a good thing.  I
merely reported some surprising actual data.

>Nosema ceranae & KBV not a cause of concern.

Bob, you have posted again and again how N ceranae is a major problem.  Why
has it suddenly become not a cause for concern?

KBV has a history of rapidily taking down colonies, especially with the help
of varroa.  All it may take is a slight mutation, similar to how human flu's
constantly evolve.  Was apparently the main suspect in some of the large
2006 losses.

>
>
> >Anyone which believes comb like i describe with fluvalinate/ coumphos high
> levels is not a problem for bees in the brood nest I have some ocean front
> property in Missouri to sell you!
>

Bob, after you've sold your property, could you please explain to us why you
haven't even mentioned what you have repeatedly stated is the cause of our
problems--the neonicotinoid insecticides.  You've written an article about
them in ABJ, and posted repeatedly to this List that you were ABSOLUTELY
SURE that the neonics were the cause of bee losses in both Europe and the
US.

Now, you've got me confused again, by your blaming of Apistan and Checkmite
(BTW, many beekeepers who suffered from colony collapses never used
Checkmite or any form of coumaphos).

Bob, you are a well-respected member of this List, and your words carry
weight with beekeepers.  But your posts leave us all confused.  Bob, I
greatly respect you, any highly value your observations and opinions.

Perhaps it would help us if you clearly stated your opinions:

1.  Does CCD exist?  Is there indeed a transmissible pathogen that takes
down healthy colonies, leaving brood, stores, the queen, but no older bees?

2.  Can colonies thrive on combs that have miticide residues or not?

3.  Is the main problem with colony collapses due to neonics or not?

4.  Is Nosema ceranae a serious problem or not?

Thanks,
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