BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:57:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (128 lines)
Barry said:

> Does not this paper identify N. ceranae as the cause 
> of CCD, and provide the control?

Bob H's comments aside, no one working on CCD has ever
thought that CCD was as simple as "just Nosema ceranae".  
It is generally understood that Spain has a much more 
virulent strain of Nosema ceranae than we do here in 
the USA.  But the informal consensus list of "CCD Symptoms" 
are very different from that of any simple Nosema ceranae 
infection.

What I have maintained for over a year now in my articles
and here on the internets is that CCD will eventually be 
found to be a combination of:

a) Both Nosema apis AND Nosema ceranae (at the same time)

b) An invasive virus known to infect bees elsewhere, but 
   not yet identified as present in the USA, and certainly
   not "IAPV".

c) Possible miticide misuse (over-use, homebrew off-label 
   mixes, etc) in the specific case of the migratory
   operations who keep pointing at systemics and corn
   to draw attention away from the damning evidence of
   the lab results on samples .

The first announcement of the involvement of Nosema ceranae
was made by Joe DeRisi of UCSF back on 04/25/2007:

http://tinyurl.com/2t6eh8
or
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/26/MNGK7PFOMS1.D
TL

At that time, the USDA/Penn State team was still focused on the
"blackened internal organs", insisting that the problem was
fungal in nature:

http://tinyurl.com/6pmuam
or
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/10/science/sci-bees10

At that time, those that Bob called "beekeepers in the loop" 
were not paying attention to either form of Nosema.  So little 
attention was being paid to Nosema prior to the recent concern 
over Nosema ceranae that Mid-Con stopped making the product 
"Fumadil-B" rather than update their label to comply with EPA's 
concerns about the "dose consistency" of the product from 
tablespoon to tablespoon and package to package.  There simply 
were not enough sales at that time.

Bob said:

> Finally researchers admit that what they call CCD symptoms do vary. 

No, this has been said from the start.  In fact, there still is
no formal definition of CCD anywhere, not even a consensus on
the list of specific symptoms that are associated with the problem.  
The reason is the variation between observations of which Bob has 
apparently only recently become aware.

> What they label CCD on the East coast can (and usually does) have 
> symptoms which do not match those on the west coast.

Perhaps Bob can list what he thinks are the two different sets of 
symptoms, as I have yet to seen any consensus on even something
this basic.  Even TWO symptom lists would be an improvement over
the current lack of any agreed-upon symptom list at all.

Bob continued:

> So far the USDA-ARS has not been able to explain why bees 
> lived half as long when fed HFCS instead of sucrose. 

The lack of a paper submitted for publication would tend to indicate
that the results are "not worth publishing".  I suspect that there
was a significant error in the methodology.  But let's not go there,
no one likes to have their mistakes highlighted.

However, it is nice to see that claims of a "USDA coverup" have ceased.
(See the "Pesticide news from Italy" thread from September 19th.)

> (Kevin Hackett) saying that the Tucson Bee lab would soon be reporting 
> interesting findings from the labs HFCS research.

The combined clues of work being done at Weslaco NOT being submitted
for publication and Kevin pointing you toward Diana Sammataro in Tucson
should clearly indicate that something was found to be amiss with the
Weslaco work and results.

> despite many of us being skeptical a switch from feeding HFCS 
> (after decades of successful use) to sucrose would produce better 
> bees the list is long with beeks which all agree the switch provided 
> better bees.

Strange - I recently spoke with Bill Bernacchi of B&B Honey Farm, 
who sells both HFCS and sucrose in bulk.  He explained the shift
to sucrose as a "temporary thing", a result of the price of HFCS
going above that of sucrose.  The price of HFCS has gone back
down, so he is seeing the bulk of orders being placed for HFCS
once again.  As far as any difference in longevity, he says that
not a single beekeeper has mentioned this issue to him.  If the
problem was real, one would think that someone like Bill would
be very much aware of the issue, as the bulk of his living is
made from selling feed to beekeepers in bulk.

> For those thinking of writing an article on a bee lab you need to
> get approval first and then get final approval of the text to be 
> submitted.

Nonsense.  No legitimate journalist tolerates such prior restraint
on their ability to write an article. I certainly don't. I'm sure 
that the USDA press office would LIKE to have so much control over 
the media, but they can only dream of this level of control.  Kevin
and his lab heads have never tried to impose any such restraint on 
me, and I've written some pretty bare-knuckled stuff that put the 
USDA-ARS in a less-than charitable light more than once.  Looks like 
you got conned by Kim Kaplan and her minions, Bob.  She would LOVE 
to "review and approve" articles if she could.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2