>Not sure why fumigillin is not as effective as the maker *says* the formula
>is the same as always and it could be that nosema ceranae is simply harder
>to control with fumigillin than nosema apis was.
>
>Another area where research funding could have been put to good use!

I am not aware of any publicly funded researchers working on alternative
nosema treatments, but a lot of public money has been spent on documenting
nosema problems.

Maybe there is some interest, but it seems the cost of nosema, both in
terms of losses and the high  cost of treatments, together with the questionable
safety and even illegality in some jurisdictions of fumigillan, should justify a
strong effort to find treatments that are effective, inexpensive and non-toxic.

Nosema is costing the industry huge sums of money and it seems that the
industry should be pushing hard for solutions.  Medhat has demonstrated
quite convincingly over the past few years that controlling nosema is one
important aspect of reducing fall and winter loss with his project in Alberta.

Nosema is not THE problem.  We know that because it has been implicated
repeatedly in serious problems in the past, but does not seem, by itself, to
consistently be a problem over time.  Something else is involved and nosema
may be opportunistic -- and detectable, whereas the other causative factor(s)
may be more subtle and undetectable -- or assumed innocent.

Nonetheless, when  losses mount, eliminating or controlling nosema seems
to be an obvious and effective way to reduce loss, whatever the real
underlying issue might be.

Furgala proved nosema (who really knows for sure if it was apis or
ceranae -- or both?) was implicated in serious losses in the middle of the last
century, and demonstrated that treatment was economically justified, but
beekeepers subsequently found that nosema was either absent or not a
problem for many years and could not justify the expense.

Now we are full circle.

Some beekeepers have arranged to finance a test of some potentially
effective cheap GRAS food ingredients and some preliminary toxicity work
has been done, but the project has been commissioned for well over a year
and going on two years now and seems to be regarded as very low priority.

Why is it that beekeepers are not screaming for solutions and demanding
that researchers stop playing around with CCD and get down to
generating solutions to known problems?

A safe, inexpensive treatment for nosema would seem to top the list.

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