Bob said:>
>>Two points:
>> >Every CCD symptom can be explained by another cause.
Randy said:
> CCD is nothing more than a list of "symptoms."  It is not a cause.

I am not sure you understood my statement. I agree CCD is nothing more than 
a
list of symptoms and was simply pointing out that every described symptom
can be explained by another possible explanation.

Bob said:
>> >The symptoms put forward by the CCD working group are not seen in all
>> >CCD
>> claimed deadouts.
Randy replied:
> Then they should not be called "CCD," would they?

But without a person from the CCD team to verify according to the survey it
seems they were. I personally checked hundreds of deadouts reported on the
CCD survey as CCD and spoke with the beekeepers and none of the hives had
rapid depopulation of the adult bees with huge amounts of brood left.

Many displayed "dwindling" but "dwindling " can be explained in many ways.
Many claimed CCD when a queen and a small amount of bees were found. I have
seen this condition myself over the last fifty years and see nothing earth
shaking about seeing such.


> As I say, then you have not seen it personally.

I have seen the rapid depopulation of adult bees and found the cause to be a
pesticide kill. I have seen the "dwindling" Jerry describes but I have not
seen large amounts nor seen the problem spread through yards of bees. I have
seen nosema ceranae spread through yards of bees and watched spore counts
rise (CCD?). I have seen "dwindling" but never seen "dwindling" spread
through yards of bees.

I have seen "virus issues" but ALWAYS when varroa is present and NEVER
before varroa arrived. PMS (virus issues) came into being when varroa
arrived.


> You can easily read and see photos in my article in this month's ABJ.
> Hope
> to have it on my site soon.

I have read private research from the U.K. (Ball & Carrick) which describe
experiments on field bees, caged bees and in the lab which show you can
introduce bee virus into hives. In those experiments predating varroa Bailey
had a hard time causing problems with the hive by his experiments. In fact
virus research was such a low priority when the 92 edition of the Hive and
the Honey Bee was done only THREE pages ( 1109, 1110,1111) were devoted to
the most famous virus researchers work.

Dr. Shiminki named Parasitic Mite Syndrome (PMS) and first described the
relationship between mites and virus. I found his hypothesis correct as well
as his conclusions.

Carrick sent me a copy of his apimunda presentation on the relationship
between varroa & virus. Control varroa and virus issues go away. Control of
varroa is not what it used to be today and *in my opinion* explains a lot
about why we are seeing the rise in virus issues.

 In "classic" CCD, there is the sudden loss of
> the adult workforce over the course of a day or two, leaving behind frames
> of fairly healthy-appearing brood.  This is a phenomenon not commonly
> observed historically by any beekeeper or researcher that I know.

Can be explained by any cause which kills or disorients the bees while away
from the hive.

To a lesser degree can be expl;ained by sick bees flying out to die ( a
hypothesis I do not buy into personally)

I said:
The work of Bailey in the U.K. created many cases of colony collapse by
>> using viruses  but proves little.

Randy replied:>
> I have no idea what you mean then!  Colony collapse can be caused by any
> number of things.

My point is Bailey ground up virus bees and inoculated hives to cause
collapse. Bailey discovered and named the most virus. Years of experiments.
Most unpublished but were made available by Brenda Ball & Norman Carrick to
commercial U.S. beekeepers when we started seeing virus issues. Such times
corresponded with times in which our varroa controls were failing in the 
U.S.
. 1998 was one of those years as fluvalinate tolerant mites were widespread
and we had no replacement. Checkmite came to the rescue. The spring of "98"
was my worst year in beekeeping with the most hive loss. Varroa were in the
drivers seat. Then came checkmite and I have NEVER seen a chemical which
dropped varroa like coumaphos. Take that you "blood suckers " was the cry
from commercial beekeepers. Control only lasted a few years and then
coumaphos resistant varroa . Problem again.

> As much as I relish your attention, Bob, such a trial takes a lot of time
> and money.  Would be glad to run if you wish to fund.

I actually know the result as testing of bees in Australia shows high virus
loads but no bee problems.

> Bob, I don't know that anyone is saying that CCD is a NEW problem.

It was presented as a NEW problem to get Washington's attention. We all
wanted to find out what was killing hives so we let things take their
course. I kept quiet also but I think congress has spent all the money it is
going to on CCD research so now we can discuss woulda, coulda & shoulda
concerning CCD.

  It
> appears to me to simply be a twist on an old problem, likely exacerbated
> by
> the presence of the varroa mite and N ceranae.  The sudden collapse of
> colonies is as real as it gets, so I'm not sure what you are arguing.

I only discuss the CCD name. I agree we are losing hives and the problem is
serious.

Good discussion!

bob

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