?> If virus is half the issue and nosema ceranae is perhaps the other half 
as Jerry's study suggests then I suggest wiping out nosema ceranae 
completely from our bees has a better success rate than trying to stop virus 
issues.

I could not agree with you more, Bob.  Moreover, it seems to me that we 
really do not understand either type of nosema in honey bees and an 
understanding is increasingly crucial.

Additionally, we are only speculating what method is the most meaningful one 
to determine if nosema levels are problematic or not, and all our current 
methods are destructive and time consuming.

Even with current methods, optimal sample size, location and timing of 
sampling, both seasonal and diurnal is not clearly understood, nor is the 
best way to analyse samples to determine probable outcomes.

Out understanding, our methods and our  our projections are extremely crude 
and slow.  Nonetheless they are adequate to manage nosema if the resources 
are available to use them in a timely manner.  Unfortunately, because they 
are some cumbersome and indeterminate, beekeepers are inclined to simply 
treat on schedule prophylactically.   Is fumagillin resistance a 
possibility?  Of course it is.

Additionally, the only widely accepted and effective treatment once 
problematic nosema levels are diagnosed by these crude methods is 
fumagillin, a drug which is banned in many jurisdictions and coming under 
increasing scrutiny for potential adverse effects on the bees, the beekeeper 
and the public.

Any such adverse effects are speculative at this point, but we desperately 
need alternate controls, be they biological, managerial, or chemical.

Cheap, common GRAS additives used for prevention or suppression of fungus of 
food would be ideal and tests of several are scheduled, but the progress 
thus far has been excruciatingly slow.  The probability that we should be so 
lucky and find such cheap and common substances to be effective is low, but 
anything is worth a try.

Beaverlodge has tested some alternate chemicals and I tried to post the 
chart here yesterday using the attachment feature on the advanced post 
feature on the web interface at http://www.BEE-L.org, but my post was 
returned to me.  I'll try a different way here.  The image is at 
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/articles/images/DSCF7708_1024.jpg and is 
a slide presented at the BCHPA meeting in Cranbrook recently.

Note: A tall bar indicates less or no effect.  No bar or a short bar 
indicates good efficacy against nosema.  The three at right are most 
promising.  Not surprisingly, fumagillan was the most effective of those 
tested at the concentration shown.

The coded test substances shown were made up by a group associated with the 
Beaverlodge station and the composition was unknown to the researcher who 
presented this slide. 

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm