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:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:48:41 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
>Jim said:  This is a complex point, but the
> process used may have detected genetic evidence of PRIOR
> IAPV exposure, rather than the evidence of an actual virus.

I asked Dr Cox Foster about this point, and it appears from her detailed 
answer that they addressed this issue by looking for entire copies of the 
virus, rather than a few fragments.  I'd give them the benefit of the doubt 
on this one.

The case that IAPV was present, and likely strongly associated with CCD is 
strong, as are KBV, and the nosemas.
IMHO, far more sampling needs to be done to see just how long the virus has 
been in the US, how widespread it is, whether it was spread much through the 
use of priming queen cells with royal jelly, or by Aussie imports, or 
indirectly from Canada.

We also need to explain why Canadian bees with varroa aren't crashing.

I'm not about to write off the importance of this paper, although there are 
the questions of methodology that Jim points out that need to be confirmed. 
I don't like how it was released, nor the politics involved.
I look at it as a good starting point, and now we need to surge ahead with 
more sampling.
Randy Oliver 

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2