>>Did Prof Fries know what he was talking about?
>I think so - but who am I to judge - and how?
I have heard him speak numerous times and would say the same.
>Most of his talk covered things that we already know about the history and
>spread.
I was expecting something beyond what I already knew, but maybe I missed
something or maybe his talks were aimed at a naive audience. I've seen that
before. I attended two talks by one researcher in one day. After the first, to
a group of beekeepers, I decided he was a waste of time. After the second,
addressed to a group of his peers, I was impressed favourably.
I never found anything at all useful in Fries' talks, but that is quite
probably my fault, not his. I must respect anyone who has studied the
subject as much as he. Maybe the fact that he seemed to have nothing new to
say was the news.
>In Spain, Higes reported caged bees die in 8 days - nobody has been able to
>repeat this work.
At first I thought that those Spanish researchers might be -- how can I
say? -- unsophisticated? Not so. Spain has more hives than the USA, and Spain
has good funding and the best of contacts and resources. Higes was unable
to attend our meeting, but he sent a most capable and informed surrogate.
I was impressed, but still figured there is a piece missing in all these stories.
> So why the mass die-off in Spain and Portugal? Was it
>N.c.? Is climate involved? Could it be the race of bee? [Iberian bees
>originally came from Africa via different route to the other European races.
That seems to be a stretch. We're still wondering. Good work has been done,
but it seems we haven't found the central problem. There is something there
we are not seeing, or seeing and not recognizing.
>Monitoring in Germany does not support high colony level virulence.
Makes sense to me. Furgala made a huge big deal about nosema back in the
middle of the last century. I took those reports and recommendations
seriously at the time, and used fumagillin for a while, but saw no difference.
On examination of my hives, I found zero nosema and I redoubled my efforts,
to see signs of the disease, but still found almost nothing at that time. Others
did have it, though and we could see it.
>The N.c./Iridescent virus/CCD theory was just a comment - but put across
>very forcefully using the word 'RUBBISH' several times. He claimed that
>many others were of the same opinion that the research was flawed, but did
>not elaborate.
That is is not the sort of public comment that increases my respect for a speaker.
"RUBBISH" is a word that should -- IMO -- be reserved for very, very special
situations, not preliminary work such as the study in question.
For that matter, all research is flawed. None is perfect, so flaws are not grounds
for outright dismissal and condemnation.
A BEE-L sage, now departed reminded us daily, "Opinion is not fact". I
suspect many hearing that statement nod, but do not actually comprehend
what it means -- or what it implies.
Nobody can know everything and be everywhere. It seems clear to me that
we are all seeing different things at different times and places and should be
wary about making pronouncements on others' observations. I have never
seen anything like what I saw in my own yard last fall.
CCD is still a mystery, and what makes nosema, no matter which sort, sometimes
suddenly lethal and at other times merely a minor problem is still not explained.
Obviously there is something we are not seeing
***********************************************
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
|
